- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 17:30:37 -0400
- To: Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com>, public-fx@w3.org
- CC: "shans@google.com" <shans@google.com>
On 4/17/14 3:45 AM, Brian Birtles wrote: > Yes, this is all very redundant. The main difference is this section > also constructs a KeyframeEffect from a sequence of keyframes. I've > added that to 5.9.4. Please let me know if this makes sense. Yes, that looks great. >> What you might want to do is test >> http://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-array.isarray > > Ok, done. Might be worth adding something about using the canonical Array.isArray or something. ES6 really doesn't have great hooks here. :( > Hopefully fixed now. Yes, looks good. >> 2) It's not clear to me whether the text in the table in section 5.9.1 >> is normative or informative. If the former, it seems like it should >> just reference 5.9.4 instead of repeating it? If the latter, that would >> be good to flag somewhere. > > I've removed the effect handling from here. I think the rest is still > needed. The remaining text is all informative, right? It might be good to start with "The handling of this parameter is defined in section 5.9.4 Processing the effect parameter. " and then say "the rest of this description is non-normative", if that's the case. > For now I've just made it use Array.isArray for now as you suggested > above. I suppose that doesn't work for platform objects that support > indexed properties. Is that ok? I think that's just fine, since I don't expect there are any such objects around whose elements we'd want to treat as Keyframe objects. > Ok. I think I don't quite understand how that works but I've updated as > you suggest. What you have now looks great. > Fixed (but now we pass it on to the constructor for KeyframeEffect). Yep. Thanks again for the updates! -Boris
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2014 21:31:18 UTC