Re: [csswg-drafts] [web-animations-2] Web animations API for specifying timeline phases in animation options. (#7589)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `specifying timeline phases in WAAPI`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Go with option 2 (object/Typed OM value to specify the phase+offset), details tbd by editors`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;TabAtkins> Topic: specifying timeline phases in WAAPI<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7589<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> flackr: We've resolved on a CSS syntax for timeline phases, where you can tie an animation to a phase<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> flackr: But we didn't talk about how this would work in waapi<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> flackr: So, how do you make a WEb Animation that animates in a particular timeline phase?<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> flackr: Main two proposals are (1) extend .delay and .endDelay properties, which map to equivalent css properties<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> flackr: These accept doubles currenty, would need to bea ble to take something expressing a phase+proportion<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> flackr: Advantage of option 1 is it's easy to udnerstand<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> flackr: Option 2 is more in line with the desire to use typed properties in these JS bindings<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> flackr: so we don't ahve to parse strings all the time<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> flackr: I think Brian is on board with either<br>
&lt;Rossen_> q?<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> flackr: I have a slight preference for option 2, as it's more future-proof. Requires some wrapper around the fields, and there's a naming question<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> TabAtkins: I'm fine with option 2, with details tbd by editors<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> Rossen_: reading thru comments, Brian seems to supportive as well<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> flackr: yeah, he doesn't seem worried about the string complexity, but had no objections to option 2<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> Rossen_: so current proposal is option 2<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> Rossen_: Not hearing much other opinions<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> Rossen_: so suggest resolving on the direction<br>
&lt;bramus> SGTM<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> Rossen_: complaints, objections?<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> RESOLVED: Go with option 2 (object/Typed OM value to specify the phase+offset), details tbd by editors<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7589#issuecomment-1233142747 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Wednesday, 31 August 2022 16:12:30 UTC