- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 16:01:44 +0200
- To: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
> Sorry, but why not just 'animate'?
>
> div { position:absolute; left:0px; }
>
> So simple transition will be:
>
> div:focus { left:100px; animate: left ease-in 1s; }
I like it.
> And repeatable animation will be
>
> div:focus { animate: left "wobble" 1s infinite; }
>
> Where "wobble" is defined as table function:
>
> @profile "wobble" 0% 0px, 40% 150px, 60% 75px, 100% 0px;
That could work. I'd probably write it as:
@profile "wobble"
0% 0px,
40% 150px,
60% 75px,
100% 0px;
> Both cases define animations - one happens to be one-time animation
> and another is repeatable infinite animation.
>
> Idea was explained here:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Apr/0264.html
Right. For comparison purposes, perhaps you could write up sample code
for the use cases found here:
http://people.opera.com/howcome/2010/ta/
I've started in the right-most column, but didn't quite see an obvious
syntax for 2a.
Cheers,
-h&kon
Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Saturday, 10 April 2010 14:02:29 UTC