- From: Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 06 May 2012 16:21:20 +0300
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 6/5/12 15:56, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > I disagree, actually. I think that both "reverse" and "alternate" are > very clear names. "alternate-reverse" isn't ideal, but it's not bad > either, and I don't know how to say it more cleanly. `reverse` is, but I disagree about the others. `alternate` could mean many things (what alternates? how? which iterations are reversed?), and without reading the spec, I’d imagine it’s hard to guess what it does just from the syntax. `alternate-reverse` is the worst. The naming is completely detached from what it does (reversing odd iterations). `animation-reverse` (or `animation-iteration-reverse`) is straightforward, not prone to misinterpretation and much more extensible. > Yes, Animations is no longer in the "we can make aesthetic changes" > stage. It left that a long time ago, we just didn't finish the spec > before that happened, like we're supposed to. In general, yes. But I’d argue that some properties are not used as much in the wild as animations in general. `animation-direction`, `animation-play-state` and `animation-fill-mode` fall in that bucket. However, without data, we’re all just speculating. -- Lea Verou (http://lea.verou.me | @LeaVerou)
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2012 13:21:52 UTC