W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: [web-animations] Focus on subset of the spec

From: Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:52:05 +0900
Message-ID: <534F25B5.3080001@mozilla.com>
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 

> 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,

Received on Thursday, 17 April 2014 00:52:34 UTC

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