- From: Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 12:00:17 +0900
- To: Shane Stephens <shans@google.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On 2015/07/01 11:31, Shane Stephens wrote: > SGTM, but should we go with 'id' instead of 'name' (which I think is > what we ended up deciding was best in the May 25th f2f)? Yes, you're right.[1] I forgot about that. Thanks! [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fx/2015AprJun/0046.html > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 12:07 PM Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com > <mailto:bbirtles@mozilla.com>> wrote: > > Hi, > > Currently, Web Animations defines a 'name' attribute on > KeyframeEffectReadOnly. I think this belongs on Animation. > > Rationale: We plan to define CSSAnimation.animationName and > CSSTransition.transitionProperty largely for the purpose of identifying > particular animations running on an element. These two properties are > readonly. The 'name' property is intended to serve a similar purpose but > for script-generated animations or when a mutable identifier is > required. Hence it should live on the same object: Animation (from which > CSSAnimation and CSSTransition derive). > > My proposal: > > * Remove 'name' from KeyframeEffect(ReadOnly) > * Remove 'name' from KeyframeEffectOptions > * Add 'name' to Animation as a writeable property > * Optional: Extend the constructor for Animation to include a > third argument, 'name'. > > Alternatively (and probably better), add an AnimationOptions > dictionary with a single member 'name' and make that the > third argument. > > * Optional: Add a KeyframeAnimationOptions dictionary that extends > from KeyframeEffectsOptions and includes a 'name' member. > > Update the Animatable interface so that the animate method > takes an options object whose type is: > > optional (double or AnimationOptions) options > > > What do you think? > > Brian >
Received on Wednesday, 1 July 2015 03:00:43 UTC