- From: Kristopher Giesing <kris.giesing@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 00:50:09 -0700
- To: Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com>
- Cc: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>, Kari Pihkala <kari.pihkala@gmail.com>, Shane Stephens <shans@google.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Message-ID: <CAAhnRF-R0xEgNDYd-4P1TQ+u2VH65HrF-7+c-zjUbkuG5zjM3g@mail.gmail.com>
I was thinking that something like this is probably the best solution. (I've had some nightmarish experiences with z-order, so I'm all for avoiding that as a paradigm.) Out of curiosity, do we even need the notion of sequence numbers? Or can animations be regarded as belonging to a list or array structure that can be enumerated and manipulated with familiar push/pop/insert/append APIs? (Apologies if this has been discussed before.) - Kris On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com> wrote: > 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 07:50:40 UTC