- From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:45:43 -0700
- To: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
- Cc: Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BANLkTinKhfn8iFCXuzG6-xbmjyOEuCCwUA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Dean, On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com> wrote: > Unfortunately I cannot attend this time on Mondays (until my summer time > resumes). Double unfortunately, I have some input on the items below. > > I believe Simon will be on the call to represent Apple. > > On 29/03/2011, at 12:42 AM, Erik Dahlstrom wrote: > > > > > > > time: April 4, 2011, 20.00 UTC (see localtimes below[1]) > > phone bridge: +1 617-761-6200 (Zakim) > > passcode: FXTF (3983) > > irc channel: #fx on irc.w3.org:6665 > > > > > > Agenda: > > > > * SVG/CSS 2d transforms - 'transform-origin' > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fx/2011JanMar/0158.html > > > > * CSS Animation synchronization > > http://www.w3.org/mid/C9B60BA3.4F73%25pbakaus@zynga.com > > On this topic, I'd suggest that we don't always attempt to solve things in > markup. Obviously if we *can* solve things in markup it's great, but if it > means confusing syntax then I'd prefer to avoid it. My eventual dream with > animation is that we come up with a general model that could do all these > cool things we want - and then SMIL + CSS + JS are just ways to expose that > model, each with a particular sweet spot. > I agree. I believe a couple of small extension to the animation spec should be sufficient to do complex animations. If we notice that the spec becomes unwieldy, we should not proceed. > > > * Filter Effects status update > > I promise to get a draft out this week. I don't think there is anything too > controversial - much of the discussion on the list has been about minor > issues, and nearly everyone agrees on the direction. We simply need a > specification to talk about! > Were you able to get started on the spec? > > You might want to discuss the topic of whether or not we need the complete > range of inputs for CSS filters. I think there is general agreement that the > first pass does not require this feature, and a slight consensus of people > suggesting the entire feature be left for SVG/XML filters completely. > > > Thanks! Rik
Received on Friday, 15 April 2011 21:46:10 UTC