Re: Animating SVG attributes from Web Animations

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 9:24 PM Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:

>  On Jun 16, 2015, at 9:35 AM, Shane Stephens <shans@google.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>  On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 4:46 PM Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>>   On Jun 16, 2015, at 7:16 AM, Shane Stephens <shans@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>   Shall WebAnimation also animate HTML attributes at some point?
>>
>>
>>  I don't know. We've talked in the past about animating class. I'd also
>> like to be able to animate scroll offsets at some point.
>>
>>
>>> If yes, shall these attributes be “html” prefixed as well?
>>
>>
>>  Yes. I think that would make sense.
>>
>>
>>> What happens with the “svg*” attribute animation once we promoted the
>>> attribute to a CSS property/ presentation attribute?
>>>
>>
>>  * If the promotion matches the syntax and name, then animating either
>> svgFoo or foo will produce identical results.
>> * If the promition matches the syntax, but the name foo becomes bar when
>> promoted, then animating svgFoo and animating bar will produce identical
>> results.
>> etc..
>>
>>
>>    What about the CSS properties width/height and the width/height
>> attributes on an HTMLCanvasElement? Both can be applied at the same time
>> and may have different meanings. I assume that this would justify the html*
>> prefix but we would end up with a svgWidth and htmlWidth animation
>> attribute.
>>
>
>  Yes, these would also be properties that we would want to provide with
> an html prefix, if we choose to make them animatable. I'm not aware of any
> plans to do so right now though.
>
>
>>  Is there maybe a way to explicitly state that you want to animate a
>> property or an attribute? In case of a presentation attribute it would
>> always fallback to the property? Similar to “attributeType”[1] in SVG
>> animations?
>>
>
>  svg/html as a prefix is an example of an explicit way :) Happy to
> consider others too. Do you have some ideas?
>
>
>  What about another animation parameter?
>
>
>  Note that it's probably a bad idea to restrict a single animation to
> only property animation or only attribute animation, because future
> promotion of attributes might then lead to the need for a large-scale
> refactor.
>
>
>  IMO the current experience with the latest presentation properties lead
> to a different conclusion. Still supporting attribute animations separate
> from property animations on a presentation attribute is quite a challenge
> and we agreed to not require this anymore.
>

Can you provide more context? e.g. who's 'we' and which animations are you
talking about? What were the challenges?

I can't think of any particular difficulties that would prevent us
supporting both property and attribute references within a single keyframe,
but maybe I'm thinking wrong.

Cheers,
    -Shane


>
>  Greetings,
> Dirk
>
>
>  Cheers,
>     -Shane
>
>
>>  Greetings,
>> Dirk
>>
>>  [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/animate.html#AttributeTypeAttribute
>>
>>
>>  Cheers,
>>     -Shane
>>
>>
>>> Dirk
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Cheers,
>>> >     -Shane
>>>
>>>