On 03/30/2010 10:17 AM, Brad Kemper wrote: > > On Mar 29, 2010, at 6:43 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com >> <mailto:annevk@opera.com>> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:22:18 -0700, Lars Gunther >> <gunther@keryx.se <mailto:gunther@keryx.se>> wrote: >> >> 2010-03-29 23:16, Robert O'Callahan skrev: >> >> My personal opinion is that CSS Animation makes sense for >> presentational >> animations, but I don't want to see CSS Animation used >> for animations >> that are essentially animated images (like most Flash ads). >> >> >> Mark my words. That will happen! >> >> To many "ninjas", too many "clever" people, too much incentive! >> >> >> Sure they will, but there's not really any disadvantage compared >> to them using some JavaScript-based solution instead. >> >> Yeah, but I'd rather they used SVG animation or some other >> content-based declarative animation instead. > > Why is that, if the end result is the same? Why not let the authors > choose whatever means makes the most sense to them? Because the boundaries of CSS should be clearly defined, otherwise you have every author speaking there own barely understandable dialect made of CSS HTML, DOM, Flash. This is one of the main criticisms of languages like Perl is it not? I.e. Too many ways to do the same thing. I think it is summed up in the Orthogonality Programming Principal: "independent functions should be controlled by independent mechanisms" which applies to language design too.
Received on Tuesday, 30 March 2010 05:22:08 UTC