- From: Shane Stephens <shans@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 06:14:38 +0900
- To: "Tab Atkins, Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>, Animations W3C WG <public-fx@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAGTfzwS02v-K+jjKoHn1j5Ptz9Ju4-WOOaX_poB2MdvZEfO5zg@mail.gmail.com>
As currently specified, it is possible to seek within a paused Web Animation - i.e. François' use case is supported. The (mostly) stateless nature of Timed Items makes this behavior reasonably easy to support. Cheers, - Shane On Jun 10, 2013 4:24 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:30 AM, François REMY > <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > > > I’ve been thinking about a usecase today where I wanted an animation to > stop > > playing while still being able to “seek” inside the animation timeline. > > > > I was hoping to use “animation-play-state: paused” and then update the > value > > of “animation-delay” to seek into the animation but it doesn’t seem to > work > > as I expected (the value of the animations properties are kept frozen > even > > after the delay has been changed). > > > > If we think in terms of Web Animations, marking the animation as paused > is > > equal to setting its playback rate to 0 temporarily, but that should not > > prevent seek operations to work. > > > > What do you think of it? Should that be changed? Or should it just be > > clarified that changing the animation delay does not cause the animation > to > > be recomputed? In all other cases, changing the animation delay 'restart' > > the animation from scratch (at the animation-delay time). My belief was > that > > it would still do the same when paused, except that the state after the > > restart would be paused. > > I find your assumption reasonable, that pausing the animation is > effectively just setting its playback rate to 0, which means you can > still seek within it. > > However, there may be deeper reasons why the animation is best treated > as "frozen" instead. Shane/Brian/etc., any comments? > > ~TJ > >
Received on Sunday, 9 June 2013 21:15:06 UTC