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

Re: transitions vs. animations

From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 03:28:05 +0200
Message-ID: <19389.12581.823103.29808@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
Also sprach Tab Atkins Jr.:

 > > > > 

 > > I'd love to add a column with Tab's proposals. Anther tab, so to say :)
 > 1a:

Thanks, that was quick -- I've added your entries to the table:


 > /* I suspect this expresses the notion that you want, where it's
 > supposed to bounce *while* moving. */


 > /* Also, assuming you mean "the class changes from one to two", rather
 > than "unhovered". */

Indeed, fixed.

 > .two {
 >   position: relative;
 >   left: 500px;
 >   play-during: sway 1s 1s;
 > }
 > /* Delay added to make it wait until the transition is done. */

So, the only difference between 'play-in' and 'play-during' is that
'play-during' has 'infinite' as an implicit value?

I think your syntax looks good, it's quite readable. 

I don't like having *four* sets of properties (transition, play-in,
play-during, play-out) that all can accept comma-separated values.

And I don't like that the "transition" name (which is hard to spell)
is still in there. May I suggest that you rename "transition" to
"effect" (or something) in your proposal?

Håkon's naming priciple: Good names are better than correct names.


              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 01:28:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:13:45 UTC