- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:39:28 +1300
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jennifer Yu <Jennifer.Yu@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Monday 2011-11-14 18:35 -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Jennifer Yu <Jennifer.Yu@microsoft.com> wrote: > > What should this animation look like? > > > > @keyframes anim1 { > > 0% {color: red; left: 10px;} > > 50% { color: notARealColor; left: 20px; } > > 100% { color: yellow; left: 90px; } > > } > > > > Should the specified color property value at 50% effectively be ignored as > > if it were not specified? Or should the whole animation of the color > > property be ignored? Or, taking it to a further extreme, should the entire > > animation be ignored? > > > > It seems more natural to just ignore the specified color value. However, > > preventing some of the animation from running would be a clear indicator to > > a web author that thereβs a problem with his defined animation. > > That would break forward-compatible parsing. Only the single invalid > declaration should be ignored, so that authors can do the standard > "provide multiple versions of a property" style of fallback. Agreed. It should behave as though 'color' was not specified in the 50% keyframe. So, to answer the original question, in that animation, color should animate from red at 0% to yellow at 100%, and left should animate from 10px at 0% to 20px at 50% to 90px at 100%. -David -- π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π π’ Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ π
Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2011 02:40:06 UTC