W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > July to September 2015

Re: [web-animations] Animation composite order

From: Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:59:55 +0900
To: Kristopher Giesing <kris.giesing@gmail.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: <55A7647B.1060203@mozilla.com>
On 2015/07/16 16:50, Kristopher Giesing wrote:
> 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.)

I think sequence numbers shouldn't be exposed by the API. They're just a 
product of how the model is described.

The sequence numbers are, in effect, describing a kind of global array. 
The proposed compositeAfter/Before are basically doing operations on 
that global array. I don't know if it makes sense to expose the array 
whole-sale, however, since normally you don't access the whole thing.

For example, you can call document.timeline.getAnimations() but that 
will only give you part of the "global sequence number array" 
(specifically it will be filtered by animations referring to 
document.timeline as their timeline) spliced together with CSS 
animations and transitions which don't use sequence numbers. 
Element.getAnimations() gives you a different subset.

If you've got a specific idea in mind, however, of how this should work, 
please let us know!

Brian
Received on Thursday, 16 July 2015 08:00:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:54 UTC