- From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 09:16:23 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2013 16:16:58 UTC
What if someone used 'animation-fill-mode: backwards' with an infinite 'animation-delay'? The animation wouldn't be running at print time but there would be a reasonable expectation that the first keyframe was applied. On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote: > On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 8:53 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-animations/ is currently not clear on > > what CSS animations should do in non-interactive media. (The > > "Media" lines in the spec are almost certainly wrong.) > > > > For example, when printing, what happens to CSS animations? There > > are two obvious choices: > > > > (1) ignore the animation properties and don't apply any animations > > > > (2) honor the animation properties and freeze the animations at > > time 0 > > > > I tend to think the correct answer is (1); this allows authors to > > get reasonable fallback when the initial state of their animation is > > offscreen or similarly useless, and it matches the fallback they > > already (should) have for implementations that don't support CSS > > animations. > > > > (It's not what Gecko currently implements, but I'm thinking of > > changing it.) > > This sounds correct to me. Non-interactive media simply can't > *implement* animations, so they should be handled like anything else > that isn't implemented, and summarily ignored. > > ~TJ > >
Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2013 16:16:58 UTC