- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 18:22:45 -0700
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
These are the official CSSWG minutes. Unless you're correcting the minutes, *Please respond by starting a new thread with an appropriate subject line.* Web Animations -------------- Brian Birtles presented the Web Animations draft https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/FXTF/raw-file/default/web-anim/index.html with an overview of its contents: https://wiki.mozilla.org/images/f/f6/CSS-SVG-Web-Animations.png Dean Jackson of Apple expressed some concern at adding so much API to the Web platform at once: [We're] concerned about the massive amount of new API to add in one step. Generally Web improvements are more successful when iterative rather than massive new feature. And also expressed that Apple's main interest in this type of work is very much in the form of declarative approaches to animation backed by a strong API. and so there was some concern over leaving out features needed for declarative control. However, everyone agreed that the spec was in good shape for FPWD, so RESOLVED: Publish Web Animations as First Public Working Draft (resolved by both CSS and SVG WGs). P.S. There is an experimental JS shim for the draft available at https://github.com/web-animations/web-animations-js ====== Full minutes below ====== Present: Glenn Adams, Cox Rossen Atanassov, Microsoft Tab Atkins, Google Nikos Andronikos, Canon Tavmjong Bah, Inkscape David Baron, Mozilla Brian Birtles, Mozilla Japan Bert Bos, W3C Rik Cabanier, Adobe Cyril Concolato, Télécom ParisTech John Daggett, Mozilla (via phone/IRC) Jim Dovey, Kobo Justin Erenkrantz, Bloomberg Elika Etemad, Mozilla Daniel Glazman, Disruptive Innovations Richard Ishida, W3C Koji Ishii, Rakuten Dean Jackson, Apple Philippe Le Hegaret, W3C Peter Linss, HP Cameron McCormack, Mozilla Simon Sapin, Mozilla Doug Schepers, W3C (via phone/IRC) Dirk Schultze, Adobe Alan Stearns, Adobe Shane Stevens, Google Satoru Takagi, KDDI Jet Villegas, Mozilla Masataka Yakura, ?? Kazutaka Yamamoto, NTT Scribe: dbaron Introductions ------------- [ See attendees list for the list ] Agenda ------ Peter: There's also an FXTF wiki for agenda items in addition to http://wiki.csswg.org/planning/tokyo-2013#agenda heycam: The only ordering restriction is doug wants to call in for text wrapping, prefers early Web Animations -------------- <birtles> spec link: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/FXTF/raw-file/default/web-anim/index.html birtles: wanted to give overview of web animation; getting close to asking for FPWD. britles: summary of where the spec has come from and what's in it now, so you know what you're looking at when review birtles: microsoft asked that there be one model for animations on the web, not separate SVG animations and CSS animations, and suggested there should be an API. Request echoed by others. birtles: about 1 year ago, Adobe suggested I start concrete proposal for that; invited Shane (Google) to help, had suggestions about state machines birtles: presented last year in Hamburg, and FXTF agreed to take it on as a work item birtles: I've been working with Adobe and Google to produce specification <birtles> diagram: https://wiki.mozilla.org/images/f/f6/CSS-SVG-Web-Animations.png birtles: overview of what's in it in this diagram birtles describes diagram birtles: (part of diagram description) SVG features not in the model mostly are features that generate animations rather than animations themselves birtles: We've cut a bunch of features recently; deferred integration with media and other features to keep it to a core model that roughly represents what's there already plus just a few extras birtles: Specification is quite long, because (1) it's the union of existing technologies (2) tries to define a lot of gray areas, particularly with regards to SVG. We've incorporated the features SVG references from SMIL into the model. More explicitly defined. (3) Style of specification; many non-normative explanatory sections. birtles: Apple's request to split into 2 parts: model first, then script api. birtles: we're focusing on the model, but the API often generates the most controversy/feedback birtles: going forwards, both Google and Mozilla have been talking about implementation strategies. Starting by implementing the model and pref-ing off the API, and then enabling the API bit by bit. birtles: The API is the controversial bit and the bit we really want to get right (hard to change later). birtles: About ready to ask for First Public Working Draft (FPWD) approval; a few edits we want to make first (drop a few interfaces). birtles: So what's there is hopefully what we'll be sending out later this week. birtles: So, just wanted to introduce this and ask if any immediate feedback or questions dino: slightly concerned that media was dropped. One of the things we considered important from Apple's perspective. dino: But I think this spec is in better shape before FPWD than most specs are after 5 or 6 WDs. birtles: Decision to drop media references is very recent; we have spec text around. So if that's a strong request from other vendors then we could look at it. dino: Nothing to stop a draft. Call out in the draft that it's been removed? birtles: Also looking to make that a separate module so it doesn't have to wait for v2. If it matures quickly could look at pulling into v1, but anticipate implementation issues that could hold back core model. stearns: on the other side: is there justification in the draft for the for new things in the model? stearns: rather than just describing the union? birtles: there isn't extensive justification for each feature birtles: timing groups quite central to the model, come about with issues with SVG synchronization features. Custom effects could be dropped. iterationstart is a commonly requested feature and very minor addition birtles: no justification per se except for use cases at the start dino: our feedback a while ago (but don't want to argue against this spec) was that we were concerned about the massive amount of new API to add in one step. Generally Web improvements are more successful when iterative rather than massive new feature (be interesting to know why?). dino: also suggested that Apple's main interest in this type of work is very much in the form of declarative approaches to animation backed by a strong API. dino: I think the strength of this spec is that it has a powerful API with a complete JS library. dino: We're more interested in how a web developer not knowing much about animations mark up their document so that things happen over time in the document dino: That's why we're interested in media dino: The first way most people add time aspects to their document is video... we didn't necessarily want to have them add JS to do that. dino: At SVG meeting earlier in this year, we discussed maybe a module to this spec to say that there's a way to apply changes in state over time, exposed e.g. by new CSS selector or class dino: so a developer would approach authoring by saying from 10s-20s, this is the state that applies dino: so you could write CSS that applies when that state is active dino: so a CSS developer could easily understand this -- no JS. When state applies, apply transitions/animations/styles/whatever. dino: but adjacent to this spec dino: more like what we were hoping to use this spec for birtles: I should emphasize that the API is not fundamental to the model; you can implement the model without the API. birtles: Those parts which are outside the model but are in CSS or SVG are defined in separate specifications. birtles: For the SVG parts, we'd have an SVG specification (my next task). birtles: Likewise CSS animations level 4 could be expressed in terms of that model birtles: in media... doing as a separate model... dino: primary use case readalong books in iBooks -- a kids book that has, say, 3 lines of text on the page dino: audio track in page, lines or words highlight along with audio track dino: want to avoid using script dirk: using SMIL for this? dino: Ever tried writing that in SMIL? It's crazy. birtles: next specification I'll be working on is SVG mapping onto the model dirk: Your request is to review the spec give feedback, and end up with publishing FPWD. birtles: yes, will send request later this week dino: what's the state of your JS shim/polyfill? <jdovey> JS shim is at https://github.com/web-animations/web-animations-js birtles: I'm not contributing to that; Google is. shane: what info do you want? dino: how complete relative to spec? shane: more complete than current spec? Up to date other than last 3-4 weeks. shane: on github, open source license shane: should be relatively easy for us to sync with last set of changes over a week or so birtles: have some issues with events marked in spec with "feedback wanted" -- we want more input glazou: did you want to ask for FPWD now? ?: or give people time to review? dino: I think it's a high quality spec, I think the question is whether in scope or out of scope. glazou: do people want time to review? [various people happy with publishing] Bert: no time to review before July anyway, so don't wait for me RESOLVED: Publish Web Animations as First Public Working Draft (resolved by both CSS and SVG WGs).
Received on Friday, 28 June 2013 01:23:26 UTC