- From: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:58:40 +1100
- To: Lea Verou <lea@verou.me>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Lea Verou <lea@verou.me> wrote: > Use case: [1] (applying the same animation when a checkbox is checked AND > unchecked). Many similar use cases exist, for each pseudo-class (I’ve come > across this before for :hover and :not(:hover), as well as for :focus and > probably more). > > Being able to have multiple names per @keyframes rule would eliminate the > duplication of having two identical @keyframes rules without forcing us to > completely rethink animations to accomodate such use cases. > > YES, it’s totally a hack, as the intent here is event-based animation. But > the use cases are many and valid. Authors do need this, and the answer > cannot be “Just learn JS and use WebAnim”. That’s a huge barrier there for > non-programmers, who will instead resort to duplicating their @keyframes > rule, because it’s simpler (especially if they’re using some sort of > preprocessor). However, we also cannot completely rethink css-animations at > this point. So, I think it’s a reasonable, easy to implement, compromise. > > Thoughts? Interesting use case. Yes it seems like a valid usage, but allowing multiple identifiers per @kerframes rule doesn't seem to make much sense otherwise. Given the rule is that animation occurs when `animation-name` is overridden, what about extending `animation-name` to accept an optional extra component after each animation name, which doesn't have meaning itself, just for triggering the overriding? - Xidorn
Received on Tuesday, 20 October 2015 23:59:46 UTC