- From: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
- Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:44:38 -0800
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 05/02/2012, at 6:11 AM, Sylvain Galineau wrote: > > [Dean Jackson:] >> >> >> On 02/02/2012, at 5:36 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> Me too. It's pretty simple to understand. >> > Great. One asserts it's ideal, the other it's simple. I don't think it's > either :) I don't think it's that obvious, and neither do the implementors here > asking the question; I'd like the people who it is to explain why it's obvious > and/or better than the alternative. > > I also don't understand why it's important to avoid a discontinuity on something > that's unlikely to be iterated on. > I'd also be ok with disallowing values < 1, if that makes you or the implementors there any happier :) Dean
Received on Sunday, 5 February 2012 17:45:38 UTC