- From: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 17:26:05 -0700
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
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. ----- ~Chris cmarrin@apple.com
Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 00:26:38 UTC