Re: [csswg-drafts] [web-animations-2] [scroll-animations] Web Animations Level 2 is labeled as "Not Ready For Implementation" and yet is required to implement Scroll-driven Animations (#11466)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[web-animations-2] [scroll-animations] Web Animations Level 2 is labeled as "Not Ready For Implementation" and yet is required to implement Scroll-driven Animations`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: remove the global warning on WA2, but put back warnings on subsections that still need work, with editor's discretion`
* `RESOLVED: Publish updated WD`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;emilio> smfr: scroll-driven animations (shipped in Chrome, in progress in WebKit) depend on incomplete parts of WebAnimations 2<br>
&lt;emilio> ... so I think we need to split it up<br>
&lt;emilio> ... that contains the pieces that are needed for scroll-driven animations at least<br>
&lt;emilio> bramus: the spec has a giant "not ready for implementation" warning<br>
&lt;emilio> q+<br>
&lt;flackr> q+<br>
&lt;emilio> smfr: a bit sad chrome shipped without the specs finished<br>
&lt;astearns> ack fantasai<br>
&lt;ydaniv> q+<br>
&lt;bramus> scribe+<br>
&lt;bramus> emilio: which parts are needed for sda?<br>
&lt;bramus> … timelines i guess?<br>
&lt;bramus> ydaniv: ranges<br>
&lt;astearns> ack emilio<br>
&lt;astearns> ack flackr<br>
&lt;emilio> flackr: On the issue we discussed a bunch of this and the parts that are used for scroll animations are fine<br>
&lt;emilio> ... we could move them to WA1 but other of the bits like grouping and custom effects don't have implementations<br>
&lt;emilio> ... options...<br>
&lt;emilio> ... move unimplemented things to an appendix<br>
&lt;emilio> ... birtles wanted to keep grouping effects at least<br>
&lt;emilio> ... spec is good but no css syntax tho<br>
&lt;astearns> ack ydaniv<br>
&lt;emilio> ... preference would be to move non-implemented bits into an appendix and bring them back once we have impl experience<br>
&lt;emilio> ydaniv: replying to smfr, just a technicallity<br>
&lt;emilio> ... scroll animations have their own spec but the web animations bits are good to implement<br>
&lt;emilio> ... in that issue I put a few issues that I'd like discussion on<br>
&lt;emilio> ... before we remove the not ready for implementation bit<br>
&lt;emilio> q+<br>
&lt;astearns> ack fantasai<br>
&lt;bramus> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/11466#issuecomment-2625295147<br>
&lt;emilio> fantasai: a feature goes through different phases<br>
&lt;emilio> ... design, working out details before shipping<br>
&lt;emilio> ... I think group effects makes sense to split out<br>
&lt;emilio> ... this spec is CR level for ranges<br>
&lt;emilio> ... so we should recognize this<br>
&lt;emilio> ... maybe group effects are a good idea<br>
&lt;astearns> q+<br>
&lt;emilio> ... but we should split them up<br>
&lt;astearns> ack emilio<br>
&lt;bramus> emilio: could another alternative be to move the mature parts of web animations 2 into 1?<br>
&lt;bramus> … rather than splitting the spec into two parts<br>
&lt;bramus> … in general seems fine to mark bits that are stable-ish stable<br>
&lt;astearns> ack astearns<br>
&lt;emilio> astearns: alternative change... leave everything in place and take the sections and say "these are good"<br>
&lt;emilio> ... to get past this<br>
&lt;emilio> ... not sure we need to split drafts for a subset of the draft to fix this<br>
&lt;bramus> q+<br>
&lt;emilio> ... might be able to mark things as ready despite the maturity of the other parts of the draft<br>
&lt;astearns> ack bramus<br>
&lt;ChrisL> q+<br>
&lt;emilio> bramus: not sure how that'd go but would it be as easy to put warnings on the unstable parts?<br>
&lt;emilio> astearns: was thinking of keeping the warning on the draft entirely and list the sections that are further along<br>
&lt;emilio> bramus: could an alternative be removing the spec and add warnings to the unstable sections?<br>
&lt;emilio> ChrisL: that's better<br>
&lt;emilio> ack ChrisL<br>
&lt;emilio> ChrisL: if you have a warning in your entire spec folks won't look at it<br>
&lt;emilio> fantasai: it's a diff spec so pulling stuff out is not hard probably<br>
&lt;emilio> ... some of the unstable parts might not be easy to identify tho, might be better integrated with the text<br>
&lt;emilio> astearns: so proposal would be to remove the spec warning and add it to the unstable sections<br>
&lt;emilio> ... even tho that's a bit more difficult<br>
&lt;emilio> fantasai: I think we should resolve to mark the separation clear<br>
&lt;emilio> q+<br>
&lt;astearns> ack emilio<br>
&lt;emilio> ... at editor discretion, removing the whole spec warning<br>
&lt;bramus> emilio: as an implementer, diff specs are annoying<br>
&lt;bramus> … if we are surea bout the stability prefernces would be to merge into level 1<br>
&lt;bramus> … would there be any reason not to do that?<br>
&lt;flackr> q+<br>
&lt;bramus> … i understand to remove the warning and x as a stop gap<br>
&lt;bramus> … but longer term, do we want to put it all in 1 spec instead of a diffspec?<br>
&lt;fantasai> fantasai: in the long term, diff specs should be undiffed<br>
&lt;astearns> ack flackr<br>
&lt;emilio> flackr: responding to emilio<br>
&lt;emilio> ... there are some details in the scattered diffs that incorporate some of the changes needed for grouping of effects<br>
&lt;emilio> ... it'd be trivial to say that grouping and sequencing could be removed<br>
&lt;emilio> ... wouldn't be trivial to apply the diff with those bits removed right now<br>
&lt;bramus> emilio: sounds good<br>
&lt;emilio> flackr: maybe we rework those bits into their own sections<br>
&lt;bramus> s/emilio: sounds good//<br>
&lt;emilio> ... but it's a bit more work<br>
&lt;emilio> emilio: sounds fine to flag stuff as a stopgap<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> flackr: also i believe there was still some stabiliation work to be done on WA1 that I think Brian was planning on finishing<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> flackr: so doing the merge fo the diff before that would introduce additinoal churn<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> astearns: proposed resolution: remove the global warning on WA2, but put back warnings on subsections that still need work, with editor's discretion<br>
&lt;emilio> +1<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: and then publish an updated WD<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> astearns: yes<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> astearns: objections?<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> RESOLVED: remove the global warning on WA2, but put back warnings on subsections that still need work, with editor's discretion<br>
&lt;fantasai> RESOLVED: Publish updated WD<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/11466#issuecomment-2628517248 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Friday, 31 January 2025 22:39:41 UTC