On Wed Feb 04 2015 at 11:47:12 AM Jonathan Watt <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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?
>
It's something we initially incorporated into the spec, but decided to
defer to a later level so that we could iterate faster.
Cheers,
-Shane
>
> 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".
> >
>
>
