W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2010

Re: transitions vs. animations

From: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 17:26:05 -0700
Cc: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <D4A8D051-2069-4526-9F3F-1D62EF8A8D1D@apple.com>
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>

On Apr 7, 2010, at 5:04 PM, Håkon Wium Lie wrote:

> Also sprach Chris Marrin:
>>>  http://people.opera.com/howcome/2010/ta/index.html
>> Let me split this into two issues:
> I agree that the proposal contains ideas that can be discussed
> separately.
>> 1) Unified syntax for animation and transition
>> Here you are incorporating the animation-name property into the
>> single 'effect' shorthand. This gets rid of a few animation
>> properties, but at the expense of readability and increased
>> complexity.
> I think the unified model is simpler, and more readable. Fewer
> properties, fewer terms that can be confused.
> I don't expect you to like any change proposals, though :)

Yes, my fear is that my opinions will come off as "I don't want to change the proposal"! But it's really not that. I feel strongly that the current spec is a good definition of how animations and transitions work. But I don't think it's perfect. In particular I believe that the problem that needs fixing has to do with how to trigger animations.

Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 00:26:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:45 UTC