[CSSWG][SVGWG] Minutes Tokyo F2F 2013-06-05 Wed AM I: Web Animations

These are the official CSSWG minutes. Unless you're correcting the minutes,
*Please respond by starting a new thread with an appropriate subject line.*

Web Animations
--------------

Brian Birtles presented the Web Animations draft
   https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/FXTF/raw-file/default/web-anim/index.html
with an overview of its contents:
   https://wiki.mozilla.org/images/f/f6/CSS-SVG-Web-Animations.png

Dean Jackson of Apple expressed some concern at adding so much API to
the Web platform at once:
   [We're] concerned about the massive amount of new API to add in one step.
   Generally Web improvements are more successful when iterative rather than
   massive new feature.
And also expressed that
   Apple's main interest in this type of work is very much in the form of
   declarative approaches to animation backed by a strong API.
and so there was some concern over leaving out features needed for
declarative control.

However, everyone agreed that the spec was in good shape for FPWD, so
   RESOLVED: Publish Web Animations as First Public Working Draft
             (resolved by both CSS and SVG WGs).

P.S. There is an experimental JS shim for the draft available at
   https://github.com/web-animations/web-animations-js

====== Full minutes below ======

Present:
   Glenn Adams, Cox
   Rossen Atanassov, Microsoft
   Tab Atkins, Google
   Nikos Andronikos, Canon
   Tavmjong Bah, Inkscape
   David Baron, Mozilla
   Brian Birtles, Mozilla Japan
   Bert Bos, W3C
   Rik Cabanier, Adobe
   Cyril Concolato, Télécom ParisTech
   John Daggett, Mozilla (via phone/IRC)
   Jim Dovey, Kobo
   Justin Erenkrantz, Bloomberg
   Elika Etemad, Mozilla
   Daniel Glazman, Disruptive Innovations
   Richard Ishida, W3C
   Koji Ishii, Rakuten
   Dean Jackson, Apple
   Philippe Le Hegaret, W3C
   Peter Linss, HP
   Cameron McCormack, Mozilla
   Simon Sapin, Mozilla
   Doug Schepers, W3C (via phone/IRC)
   Dirk Schultze, Adobe
   Alan Stearns, Adobe
   Shane Stevens, Google
   Satoru Takagi, KDDI
   Jet Villegas, Mozilla
   Masataka Yakura, ??
   Kazutaka Yamamoto, NTT

Scribe: dbaron

Introductions
-------------

   [ See attendees list for the list ]

Agenda
------

   Peter: There's also an FXTF wiki for agenda items in addition to
          http://wiki.csswg.org/planning/tokyo-2013#agenda
   heycam: The only ordering restriction is doug wants to call in for
           text wrapping, prefers early

Web Animations
--------------

   <birtles> spec link: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/FXTF/raw-file/default/web-anim/index.html
   birtles: wanted to give overview of web animation; getting close to
            asking for FPWD.
   britles: summary of where the spec has come from and what's in it now,
            so you know what you're looking at when review
   birtles: microsoft asked that there be one model for animations on the web,
            not separate SVG animations and CSS animations, and suggested
            there should be an API.  Request echoed by others.
   birtles: about 1 year ago, Adobe suggested I start concrete proposal
            for that; invited Shane (Google) to help, had suggestions
            about state machines
   birtles: presented last year in Hamburg, and FXTF agreed to take it on
            as a work item
   birtles: I've been working with Adobe and Google to produce specification

   <birtles> diagram: https://wiki.mozilla.org/images/f/f6/CSS-SVG-Web-Animations.png
   birtles: overview of what's in it in this diagram
   birtles describes diagram
   birtles: (part of diagram description) SVG features not in the model
            mostly are features that generate animations rather than
            animations themselves
   birtles: We've cut a bunch of features recently; deferred integration
            with media and other features to keep it to a core model that
            roughly represents what's there already plus just a few extras
   birtles: Specification is quite long, because (1) it's the union of
            existing technologies (2) tries to define a lot of gray areas,
            particularly with regards to SVG.  We've incorporated the features
            SVG references from SMIL into the model.  More explicitly defined.
            (3) Style of specification; many non-normative explanatory sections.
   birtles: Apple's request to split into 2 parts: model first, then script api.
   birtles: we're focusing on the model, but the API often generates the most
            controversy/feedback
   birtles: going forwards, both Google and Mozilla have been talking about
            implementation strategies.  Starting by implementing the model
            and pref-ing off the API, and then enabling the API bit by bit.
   birtles: The API is the controversial bit and the bit we really want
            to get right (hard to change later).
   birtles: About ready to ask for First Public Working Draft (FPWD) approval;
            a few edits we want to make first (drop a few interfaces).
   birtles: So what's there is hopefully what we'll be sending out later
            this week.
   birtles: So, just wanted to introduce this and ask if any immediate
            feedback or questions

   dino: slightly concerned that media was dropped.  One of the things we
         considered important from Apple's perspective.
   dino: But I think this spec is in better shape before FPWD than most
         specs are after 5 or 6 WDs.
   birtles: Decision to drop media references is very recent; we have spec
            text around.  So if that's a strong request from other vendors
            then we could look at it.
   dino: Nothing to stop a draft.  Call out in the draft that it's been removed?
   birtles: Also looking to make that a separate module so it doesn't have
            to wait for v2.  If it matures quickly could look at pulling
            into v1, but anticipate implementation issues that could hold
            back core model.

   stearns: on the other side: is there justification in the draft for the
            for new things in the model?
   stearns: rather than just describing the union?
   birtles: there isn't extensive justification for each feature
   birtles: timing groups quite central to the model, come about with issues
            with SVG synchronization features.  Custom effects could be dropped.
            iterationstart is a commonly requested feature and very minor
            addition
   birtles: no justification per se except for use cases at the start

   dino: our feedback a while ago (but don't want to argue against this spec)
         was that we were concerned about the massive amount of new API to
         add in one step.  Generally Web improvements are more successful
         when iterative rather than massive new feature (be interesting to
         know why?).
   dino: also suggested that Apple's main interest in this type of work is
         very much in the form of declarative approaches to animation backed
         by a strong API.
   dino: I think the strength of this spec is that it has a powerful API
         with a complete JS library.
   dino: We're more interested in how a web developer not knowing much about
         animations mark up their document so that things happen over time
         in the document
   dino: That's why we're interested in media
   dino: The first way most people add time aspects to their document is
         video... we didn't necessarily want to have them add JS to do that.
   dino: At SVG meeting earlier in this year, we discussed maybe a module
         to this spec to say that there's a way to apply changes in state
         over time, exposed e.g. by new CSS selector or class
   dino: so a developer would approach authoring by saying from 10s-20s,
         this is the state that applies
   dino: so you could write CSS that applies when that state is active
   dino: so a CSS developer could easily understand this -- no JS.  When
         state applies, apply transitions/animations/styles/whatever.
   dino: but adjacent to this spec
   dino: more like what we were hoping to use this spec for

   birtles: I should emphasize that the API is not fundamental to the model;
            you can implement the model without the API.
   birtles: Those parts which are outside the model but are in CSS or SVG
            are defined in separate specifications.
   birtles: For the SVG parts, we'd have an SVG specification (my next task).
   birtles: Likewise CSS animations level 4 could be expressed in terms of
            that model
   birtles: in media... doing as a separate model...
   dino: primary use case readalong books in iBooks -- a kids book that has,
         say, 3 lines of text on the page
   dino: audio track in page, lines or words highlight along with audio track
   dino: want to avoid using script
   dirk: using SMIL for this?
   dino: Ever tried writing that in SMIL?  It's crazy.

   birtles: next specification I'll be working on is SVG mapping onto the model
   dirk: Your request is to review the spec give feedback, and end up with
         publishing FPWD.
   birtles: yes, will send request later this week

   dino: what's the state of your JS shim/polyfill?
   <jdovey> JS shim is at https://github.com/web-animations/web-animations-js
   birtles: I'm not contributing to that; Google is.
   shane: what info do you want?
   dino: how complete relative to spec?
   shane: more complete than current spec? Up to date other than last 3-4 weeks.
   shane: on github, open source license
   shane: should be relatively easy for us to sync with last set of changes
          over a week or so
   birtles: have some issues with events marked in spec with "feedback wanted"
            -- we want more input
   glazou: did you want to ask for FPWD now?
   ?: or give people time to review?
   dino: I think it's a high quality spec, I think the question is whether
         in scope or out of scope.
   glazou: do people want time to review?
   [various people happy with publishing]
   Bert: no time to review before July anyway, so don't wait for me
   RESOLVED: Publish Web Animations as First Public Working Draft
             (resolved by both CSS and SVG WGs).

Received on Friday, 28 June 2013 01:23:16 UTC