[csswg-drafts] [web-animations-1] Unclear, possibly mislocated definition of "associated animation of an animation effect" (#8497)

ninevra has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts:

== [web-animations-1] Unclear, possibly mislocated definition of "associated animation of an animation effect" ==
In [5.4.2 The effect stack](https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/web-animations-1/#the-effect-stack), the [associated animation of an animation effect](https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/web-animations-1/#associated-animation-of-an-animation-effect) is defined as

> Let the associated animation of an animation effect be the [animation](https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/web-animations-1/#concept-animation) [associated](https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/web-animations-1/#associated-with-an-animation) with the [animation effect](https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/web-animations-1/#animation-effect) that affecting the property with which this [effect stack](https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/web-animations-1/#effect-stack) is associated.

"That affecting" doesn't seem grammatical, and I'm not sure what is the intended meaning. Possibly "that *is* affecting the property" or "that *affects* the property", but that reading of the clause doesn't add any actual information to the sentence; an animation effect is associated with [at most one animation](https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/web-animations-1/#animation-effects-and-animations), so there's no need for any such predicate. It's not clear why or how the definition would be more complicated than "the associated animation of an animation effect is the animation with which the animation effect is associated, if any".

Other issues with this sentence:
- it's only meaningful in the context of this enumerated procedure for establishing composite order, since it refers to "this effect stack", but nevertheless it's also referenced from [another place in the spec](https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/web-animations-1/#ref-for-associated-animation-of-an-animation-effect). (Admittedly the other reference is also discussing event stacks, but "this event stack" was defined by closure rather than parameter, so there's still a problem.) Possibly the definition could be hoisted up to [4.5.1 Relationship between animation effects and animations](https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/web-animations-1/#animation-effects-and-animations).
- The associated animation of one or both of the animation effects *A* and *B* being compared could be undefined (I think), but the procedure doesn't account for that in any way.

Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8497 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Sunday, 26 February 2023 11:41:26 UTC