Re: document transition effect

You would need to redefine completely the semantics behind the "left" 
property. You can't move an HTML element if it isn't relatively positionned. 
And even if you decide that the :root element is relatively positonned 
(which is something new), it don't mean the other (=new) document is forced 
to follow the current document by moving by the same amount. It would be 
very complex for another reasone : it means that if you define a transition 
on the "left" property, the new document moves from the right of the current 
document; but if it's the opacity property that's animated, then the new 
document should be located behind the other. It's not really intuitive...

Visual transitions are something different from property transitions. Many 
transitions are not representable in term of property transitions. It is 
sufficient to have a look at PowerPoint to notice the difference between 
"object animations" and "slides transitions".



-----Message d'origine----- 
From: Brad Kemper
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 8:02 PM
To: François REMY
Cc: Yves Lafon ; <www-style@w3.org>
Subject: Re: document transition effect



On Mar 15, 2011, at 9:49 AM, François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr> 
wrote:

> CSS3 Transitions have nothing (or at least, not much) to do with the kind 
> of "visual transitions" you're requesting, apart from their name.
> CSS3 Transitions are "property transition": the top property was equal to 
> 0px before the transition and will move smoothly to 5px during a certain 
> timespan instead of being immediatly set to 5px when changed: a 
> "transition" is being applied to generate intermediate values for the 
> property.

In theory, we could have :loaded and :unloaded pseudo-classes to set on the 
root, and transition on 'opacity' for a dissolve or on 'left' for a 
wipe-like transition.

Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2011 19:48:27 UTC