- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:55:29 -0800
- To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- CC: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Simon Fraser wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2010, at 7:30 pm, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
>
>> In most cases it is enough to run animation in opposite direction so is
>> my original posting on the subject.
>>
>> In current spec we have rollback mode for non-finished transition but
>> no rollback method for finished transition. System is not complete.
>
> The system may not be complete (what system ever is?), but it provides
> a simple, easy-to-use method of doing 90% of the transitions that authors
> need. I suspect that the other 10% could be done with a little bit of JavaScript.
Actually my message was based on practical use case that I've got from
UI designers testing the feature. Practically as the very first
comment/request.
>
> Allowing authors to specify transition behaviors based on both the source
> and destination style sounds like it would add significant complexity.
>
I am not sure I understand why it complicates anything.
Following sounds pretty obvious for me:
selector:state
{
transition: entering [ leaving ];
}
The transition defines style of animation used to enter
and leave the :state. If 'leaving' part is omitted then
'entering' parameters are used but in opposite direction.
Exactly in the same way as current spec defines rollback
of non-finished transaction.
Sorry but I really do not understand what is so difficult here.
Such definition is definitely more complete and simple in my
opinion.
--
Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Saturday, 30 January 2010 05:55:45 UTC