- From: Brian Birtles via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 04:43:16 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
_From @Martin-Pitt on August 11, 2016 12:26_
Do agree that in terms of flexibility/compat passing an options object makes more sense.
However still think we can go a level lower by not having the element as it is still implying a dependency with the DOM.
I noticed that computed timing options have a `progress` which is equivalent to the fraction from onsample, so this object does make a lot more sense and gives all the info needed.
Perhaps this then?
```javascript
const effectOptions = {
onsample(timing) {
let fraction = timing.progress;
}
};
const timingOptions = {
duration: 1250,
easing: 'ease-in'
};
const effect = new WebEffect(effectOptions, timingOptions);
const animation = new Animation(effect, document.timeline);
animation.play();
```
--
GitHub Notification of comment by birtles
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2062#issuecomment-349193910 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 5 December 2017 04:43:44 UTC