- From: David A via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 20:59:14 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> [@DavMila](https://github.com/DavMila) [@flackr](https://github.com/flackr) I think I did get this got this confused, sorry. I'm ok with multiple animations per trigger, but not with multiple triggers per animation. I think we should keep `Animation.trigger` as a single object, and not change to `Animation.triggers` as a list. So I guess no objection to `AnimationTrigger.add(animation)` and `AnimationTrigger.remove(animation)` in general, except for: > I'll open another issue for this but I wonder if we should consider a different name that will work regardless of what we decide about multiple triggers per animation. My feeling is that if we decide that an animation can have only one associated trigger, `AnimationTrigger.addAnimation` needs to implicitly disassociate the previously added animation. IMO `AnimationTrigger.attach(Animation)` sounds better and also seems fine if multiple triggers can attach to an animation. -- GitHub Notification of comment by DavMila Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12119#issuecomment-2985670707 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2025 20:59:15 UTC