On 2015/02/10 18:03, Aleksei Semenov wrote:
The procedure to pause a player reads (
http://w3c.github.io/web-animations/#pause-a-player ):
...
6. Schedule a task to be executed at the first possible momentafter
the user agent has performed any processing necessaryto suspend the
playback of player’s source content, if any.The task shall perform the
following steps:
...
I think, that meaning "Schedule a task" also allows to execute the task
immediately.
We need to tighten up that wording. The intention is that it should not
run synchronously.
As a result, the subsequent call to player.play() will happen *before*
the callback is run.
Unfortunately, I am not so good with the Promises spec.
But isn't possible for promise to execute the function immediately,
instead of scheduling a microtask?
No, it's not possible.
Is it possible to change the specification, that each method
(play, pause, reverse, finish) return unique Promise object related
to the method. So the following promise-like code could be possible:
player.pause().then(handlePause, rejected);
player.play().then(handlePlay, rejected);
player.finish().then(handleFinish, rejected);
I prefer this but the main problem is just the naming of play(). What
do you think of using resume()?
resume() is a counterpart of pause().
But resume() does not look well for beginning of the playback.
I think start() as a counterpart to finish() would be better.
And I like the idea that play().then( ... ) would execute after the
animation had finished.
Yes, that seems like a sensible proposal. I'll talk it over with Shane
later today.
Thanks again,
Brian
