- From: Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 14:49:10 +0900
- To: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
- Cc: Kari Pihkala <kari.pihkala@gmail.com>, Shane Stephens <shans@google.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Hi, Just following up on this thread, Shane and I discussed this a bit on IRC yesterday and we wonder if we should push ahead with adding the ability to tweak priorities soon-ish. A few points we discussed: * "Priority" may be confused with CSS prioritization. From here on we will refer to "composite order".[1] * We want to avoid an API like z-index for setting composite order. See [2] for some extreme examples of how z-index is abused in the wild. * An API along the lines of ChildNode[3] using reference nodes is probably better. e.g. animA.compositeAfter(animB); Strawman proposal: Animation.compositeBefore(refAnim) Rewrite sequence numbers so that Animation has the same sequence number as refAnim minus 1. No idea what we should do if either animation is a CSS animation/transition bound to markup. It might throw or we might be able to do something sensible. Animation.compositeBefore(null) Makes this animation the top of the stack. Likewise Animation.compositeAfter (mostly so you can do anim.compositeAfter(null) to put it on the *bottom* of the stack.) A query method might be needed too, e.g. Animation.isBefore(). With that in mind, I'm ok with using creation-time ordering plus the quirk we described for repurposed CSS animations/transitions--namely that their sequence number is reset on their first transition from idle after being orphaned. There's still plenty of work to do to try and align all these definitions but what do you think of this approach? Best regards, Brian [1] https://github.com/w3c/web-animations/issues/100 [2] http://reports.quickleft.com/css [3] https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#interface-childnode
Received on Thursday, 16 July 2015 05:49:38 UTC