I'm not sure. I guess it depends on what type of object the property would
actually point to. I'd assume it wouldn't point directly to an element, so if
the type of the objects is something like VideoAnimation, then it probably still
would make sense. If the name of the type of object doesn't contain the word
"animation", possibly it wouldn't.
Is this something that is planned for a spec?
On 04/02/2015 00:35, Shane Stephens wrote:
Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for your feedback.
Would 'animation' still be appropriate if players can target non-animation
content (e.g. video or audio) in the future?
Thanks,
-Shane
On Wed Feb 04 2015 at 11:28:56 AM Jonathan Watt <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Can the AnimationPlayer.source property *please* be renamed? The word
"source"
doesn't seem to make any sense, and would seem to imply it points to the
element
or something. It pointing to the Animation object was completely
counterintuitive to me, since I'd think of the relationship being reversed.
I.e.
the AnimationPlayer controls the Animation, and in that way its actions
"target"
the Animation, which is the inverse direction of a source<->target
relationship.
I'm not sure "target" is a good name though, since to the uninitiated on
anyone
not frequently dealing with animations scanning through code that again
would
likely look like it refers to the element. I'd suggest calling it
"animation".
