- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 21:03:21 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
-------------------------------------------------- From: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 7:59 PM To: "Håkon Wium Lie" <howcome@opera.com> Cc: <www-style@w3.org> Subject: Re: transitions vs. animations > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com> wrote: >> Also sprach Tab Atkins Jr.: >> > .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? > > Also, play-in animations won't run on page-load, if some element has > them set on it. play-during animations will. I suspect that 'play-during' is too much. So far the only useful case for it is page load animations. But for that it is enough to have :ready state flag or so. Therefore body:ready { play-in: ....; } will do exactly what you need. That :ready state flag is useful in other cases, e.g. frame:not(:ready) { background: url( loading-in-progress.gif ); } video:not(:ready) { ..... } img:not(:ready) { ..... } etc. -- Andrew Fedoniouk http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 04:03:55 UTC