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

Re: Are CSS animations a done deal?

From: sam <samuelp@iinet.net.au>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:40:54 +0800
Message-ID: <4BB22996.7010304@iinet.net.au>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
CC: robert@ocallahan.org, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, www-style@w3.org, Lars Gunther <gunther@keryx.se>
On 03/30/2010 10:56 PM, Brad Kemper wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2010, at 10:21 PM, sam wrote:
>> 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, 
> There is bound to be some overlap, but CSS is defined to be for 
> presentational style, and animation falls within that realm. 
> JavaScript then overlays everything and has no boundaries.
>> otherwise you have every author speaking there own barely 
>> understandable dialect made of CSS HTML, DOM, Flash. 
> Once you start using JavaScript or SVG, you can create all sorts of 
> things that are barely understandable to the common author. CSS 
> animation, on the other hand, is much simpler to understand and 
> replicate for those already familiar with CSS styling of HTML.
Fair enough.  My point was, in response to the question "Why not let the 
authors choose whatever means makes the most sense to them?", adding 
another mechanism by which to create general animations might be 
considered bad form considering alternatives exist and animations (not 
the animation of style) are not generally considered style.

I agree animating style falls within the realm of CSS.


Received on Tuesday, 30 March 2010 16:41:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:13:44 UTC