- From: Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:52:05 +0900
- To: public-fx@w3.org
- CC: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Hi Dirk, (2014/04/16 16:21), Dirk Schulze wrote: > With the intent to ship for Element.animate in Blink and the reviews this particular part got afterwards, I would like to suggest (this time with more emphasis) that we identify a subset of Web Animations and focus on that for the first level. Yes, I think this would be good. So far we have identified animation groups as something that can be left to a later version. A number of other features that are primarily needed for SVG support (like MotionPathEffects) could be exposed as opaque objects and we could add the methods for inspecting / modifying them in a subsequent level. > We can keep the document that “has everything” as a guidance for future levels. At this point it seems more useful to have a more agile approach and ship smaller submodules faster. Yes, I think what would help here, though, is tool support. If we had a version of Bikeshed, for example, that supported #ifdef-like functionality, that would help. Otherwise the maintenance required to keep the submodules and the "has everything" version in sync is a bit tiresome. > It seems that Element.animate[1] in a reduced form (without AnimationPlayer) is one part of this subset. I am not sure how much of the introduced animation model is really needed to harmonize CSS and SVG Animations initially. I hope we can reduce this as well and incrementally add things back. I think if we had the tool support we can start hacking away. I think we'll want AnimationPlayer in the initial subset, however. Best regards, Brian
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2014 00:52:34 UTC