W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: [web-animations] Simplifying timing groups

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 00:09:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDDRjzPcYKc+dYX9M9smAq51gi7GE3OqX8Xfqj2YZw-vdw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shane Stephens <shans@google.com>
Cc: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
I reread the spec. It's reasonable that par and seq groups are locked, but
I believe there should be an option to not lock the clocks of timing group
and its elements.
The timing group would still control the 'lifetime' of its children but
pausing it would not freeze them.

I still think that the timing group should just be linear. A paced
animation on the other hand, should have a timing function.

The thing that's still missing (and maybe that isn't needed as part of the
animations spec), is a way to control object lifetime.
There's only so much you can do by chaining and nesting animations. In the
real world, an animation is composed of a set of artwork that is flipped on
and off over time (as well as being animated)

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Shane Stephens <shans@google.com> wrote:

> This seems like a flaw in the model.
>> Why would pausing a group, freeze all its child animations?
> Because a timing group is just a way of aggregating primitive animation
> components into a more complicated animation.
>> Maybe I should study the spec more...
> Please do. Understanding what the specification is doing is an essential
> first step towards being able to judge the relative merits of the proposals
> we are discussing.
> Cheers,
>     -Shane Stephens
Received on Friday, 9 August 2013 07:10:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:46 UTC