Hi Glen,
The current two-tier approach to easings exists because:
(1) CSS behaves as you've proposed, but with disjoint: true *always* set
(2) This behavior is generally less useful than easings that operate over
the whole animation.
We'd generally recommend not specifying per-keyframe easings,
First, recall the states of an Animation which we can simplify to the
following three:
idle = no current time (*may* have a start time)
paused = has current time but no start time
running = has current time and start time
'finished' is (currently) just a variation on
I've updated the ED to reflect this change.
Cheers,
-Shane
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 9:15 PM Dirk Schulze dschu...@adobe.com wrote:
On Apr 16, 2015, at 10:42 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Erik Dahlström e...@opera.com wrote:
Hi,
...@mozilla.com
wrote:
On 2015/06/22 14:14, Brian Birtles wrote:
On 2015/06/22 13:10, Shane Stephens wrote:
One concern I have is that currently text order (or creation order) is
inviolate which makes it easy to reason about; but that might be
outweighed by the fact that if we made this change
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 4:20 PM Kari Pihkala kari.pihk...@gmail.com wrote:
2015-06-22 7:27 GMT+03:00 Amelia Bellamy-Royds
amelia.bellamy.ro...@gmail.com:
Keywords also complicate the animatability of the property. And since
this
property is all about animation, that should be a
Hi list,
Issue 2 of the motion-path specification requests more natural names for
‘auto’ and ‘reverse’. This is in the context of the motion-rotation
property: http://dev.w3.org/fxtf/motion-1/#motion-rotation.
A specification of ‘motion-rotation: auto’ causes the targeted element to
rotate so
Hi list,
Issue 5 of the motion-path specification deals with whether there needs to
be an origin specified for element impacted by motion paths. Specifically:
Do we need to specify an origin of the element in motion so that it can be
positioned accordingly before the motion? Something like
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:09 PM Dirk Schulze dschu...@adobe.com wrote:
On Jun 16, 2015, at 1:45 PM, Shane Stephens sh...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 9:24 PM Dirk Schulze dschu...@adobe.com wrote:
On Jun 16, 2015, at 9:35 AM, Shane Stephens sh...@google.com wrote
Hi list,
One of the goals of Web Animations is to enable animation of any SVG
attribute (whether presentation or otherwise). For many attributes this
will simply involve a 50% flip, but there are attributes (e.g. 'd') that
aren't presentation attributes but nevertheless have smooth interpolation
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 4:46 PM Dirk Schulze dschu...@adobe.com wrote:
On Jun 16, 2015, at 7:16 AM, Shane Stephens sh...@google.com wrote:
Shall WebAnimation also animate HTML attributes at some point?
I don't know. We've talked in the past about animating class. I'd also
like
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 9:24 PM Dirk Schulze dschu...@adobe.com wrote:
On Jun 16, 2015, at 9:35 AM, Shane Stephens sh...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 4:46 PM Dirk Schulze dschu...@adobe.com wrote:
On Jun 16, 2015, at 7:16 AM, Shane Stephens sh...@google.com wrote
Hi Glen,
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 5:09 PM Glen Huang curvedm...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I recently tried to manage very complex animation, and realized I need
this feature:
When animations fire ready and finish events, they first bubble into to
the associated effects, if effects have nesting
I guess either you're suggesting:
a) Updating animation properties triggers a global sequence number
rewrite (I hope this isn't the case), or
b) Script-animations and CSS animations share the same source of
sequence numbers but when we come to prioritize animations we
don't
Hi list,
When interpolating between rotations with different axis alignment, we
always fall back on matrix decomposition.
However, if one of the angles is 0, then the resulting behavior is that the
rotation axis snaps immediately to the other axis. So for example, if I
transition
transform:
Replying in this thread to maintain the context.
I think that would be good. I'm afraid I can't quite remember why
creation ordering is better or why this proposal is better. I'm not
opposed to it but I'd like to give others a chance to check it over too.
Would you mind writing quick summary
On 2015/07/15 8:37, Shane Stephens wrote:
(3) It is idiomatic to create animation resources separately from their
scheduling. We've already seen a desire to do things like this with
declarative animation and triggers, or with time sheets.
It seems equally true to say that its idiomatic
> Any thoughts?
>
This seems like a really good idea.
As an extra point - we don't need to solve custom animations (onsample
effects that modify the document) until L2, so we don't need to think about
this right now - but if we said that animations without a target element
belong to the document
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 12:21 PM Brian Birtles bbirt...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 2015/07/02 15:10, Shane Stephens wrote:
I guess either you're suggesting:
a) Updating animation properties triggers a global sequence number
rewrite (I hope this isn't the case), or
b
I wonder if this proposal is a little bit odd in that we have the
following two cases:
a) var anim = new CSSAnimation(...);
anim.play();
b) elem.style.animation = ...;
var anim = elem.getAnimations()[0];
elem.style.animation = ;
anim.play();
In (a), the priority of anim
Hi list,
Cameron pointed out today that the path() function in motion-1 takes a fill
rule. It looks like dschulze added this late in 2014 so that other
specifications (some of which need a fill rule) could reference the path
syntax too.
Cameron pointed this out because he wanted to reference
The -webkit- version frankly doesn't matter. It can continue to support
legacy syntax - vendors explicitly accept the risk of specifications
changing when they ship prefixed implementations. I suspect we will simply
deprecate and remove the -webkit- syntax, though (not sure about Safari).
In
. With the raf
version this effect is not seen. I will try to isolate it tomorrow but I
may have to move on to other things. It might end up being a bug in my code
but it looks like a easing issue from my experience.
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Shane Stephens sh...@google.com wrote:
Hi
22 matches
Mail list logo
