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

Re: transitions vs. animations

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 10:50:12 -0700
Cc: H??kon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <39F7AD36-2824-45E1-AED4-2AB5676D9FCB@gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>

On Apr 7, 2010, at 7:59 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

>> 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.
> I have no particular attachment to the current name.

I think "transition" is the most descriptive and evocative, of anything I've heard so far for this. It is meaningful. I much prefer it to "effect", which could mean almost anything. A glow can be an effect. So can an echo. 
Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 17:50:52 UTC

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