Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-animations-2] Should animation triggers be their own spec? (#13245)

@fantasai:
> And regardless, shouldn't we publish a Working Draft of this huge new feature and invite wide review?

Currently all the spec text in `web-animations-2` is obsolete since we did an overhaul of this feature to introduce Event Triggers, granular actions, and multiple timelines per trigger.

@tabatkins did a rewrite of the high-level author-facing spec text in `css-animations-2` + the declarative syntax to reflect better these changes.

So no need for publishing and review until we finish rewriting the entire feature to reflect latest resolutions.

> With Scroll Animations, we put the key integration points into Animations Level 2, but pulled the bulk of it into its own module. Should we do the same with Animation Triggers?

In the case of Animation Triggers we split the spec into 2:
1. High-level, author-facing part with declarative syntax in `css-animations-2`.
2. Lower-level, implementor-facing part with imperative syntax in `web-animations-2`.

We could extract all of it into a separate, single module for `animation-triggers`. That sounds like a idea.
Only thing that might be a problem, I don't know if bikeshed can handle cyclic dependencies. Since this module will definitely import names from `css-animations` and `web-animations` 1 & 2, but we may need to import names back into `web-animations-2` for the imperative interfaces. Unless we can somehow define these as delta extensions to these interfaces in that new module?

cc @tabatkins @flackr 

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by ydaniv
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/13245#issuecomment-3675019792 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Friday, 19 December 2025 13:07:52 UTC