- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 06:49:34 -0800
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote: > [Tab Atkins Jr.:] >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com> wrote: >> > On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 01:58:33 +0100, Sylvain Galineau >> > <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote: >> >> I assume animation-iteration-count:0 means no animation occurs and no >> >> animation events are thrown regardless of duration and delay. >> >> >> >> Does animation-fill-mode have any effect in this case? >> > >> > When I raised this back in >> > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Oct/0107.html>, >> > David argued that it would make sense to avoid a discontinuity at 0. >> > With that reasoning, >> > >> > - start event and end event should dispatch at the end of the delay >> > - fill mode 'backwards'/'both' should have an effect during the delay >> > phase >> > - fill mode 'forwards'/'both' should have an effect after the delay >> > phase >> >> I agree with dbaron that this is the ideal behavior. >> > Why is it ideal? For the reason dbaron gives - it avoids a discontinuity at 0, which we try to avoid in CSS (as it causes surprises). One could argue that someone setting animation-iteration-count to 0 is trying to "turn off" the animation, but there's already a simple way to turn off an animation - either change animation-name to 'none', or remove it from the animation declarations directly. There's no need to add an additional way. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 3 February 2012 14:50:26 UTC