Re: [animation] animation-fill-mode on partial iteration

Agreed that the FF and Blink behavior sounds more on par with author expectations. If IE does the same, like Greg said, even more reason to change the spec! Here’s a testcase in case anyone wants to play with it [1]

~Lea

[1]: http://dabblet.com/gist/92a95482a2cae26f2a88

On Oct 3, 2014, at 17:47, Estelle Weyl <estelle@weyl.org> wrote:

> 
> The spec and implementation are different when it comes to handling animation-fill-mode on a partial animation cycle.
> 
> Safari follows the spec.
> The implementation of FF and Blink do not follow the spec, but make more sense.
> Haven't tried IE. 
> 
> Example is at http://estelle.github.io/animation/files/halfiterationforwards.html.
> Spec is at: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-animations/#animation-timing-function where it reads:
> 
> Note: If animation-iteration-count is a non-integer value, the animation will stop executing partway through its animation cycle, but a forwards fill will still apply the values of the 100% keyframe, not whatever values were being applied at the time the animation stopped executing.
> 
> Basically the spec says now "no matter where you are in the animation, jump to the 100% keyframe" which is what safari does. FF and Blink stay on the keyfraome where the partial animation ended.
> 
> Safari goes to the 100% keyframe even if the last iteration is 'reverse', which seemingly conforms to the spec, but truly doesn't look right if you were on the 99% keyframe.
> 
> Is the spec going to change to reflect blink's and FF's behavior? Or should i file a bug with chrome and FF? I am hoping the spec changes.
> 
> Estelle Weyl
> estelle@weyl.org
> http://www.standardista.com
> 
> NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders still not rescinded by President Obama, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice, and certainly without probable cause. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. Click here to learn more about current US laws and your rights.
> 
> 
> 

Received on Sunday, 12 October 2014 01:38:22 UTC