Hi Kari,
On 2015/07/17 15:31, Kari Pihkala wrote:
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.
I agree with Kris here. The use of global sequence numbers is a bit confusing.
Do you think the order of the animations could be described as a
script animation list?
Thanks for your suggestion! I think that description is quite clear.
As a minor point, I don't think it should be called the script animation
list however. The reason is that script-generated animations should not
be a special case but rather CSS animations / transitions are the
special case. The script API generates generic Animation objects and CSS
provides specialized Animation objects that apply additional rules as
required by CSS markup.
We need to be clear that the purpose of the list is simply ordering
(i.e. implementations don't need to maintain an actual list) and
describe how Animatable.getAnimations() filters this list.
Also, if a script causes a CSS animation/transition to move away from
idle state, then that animation is brought to the end of the script
animation list.
Yes, that's right except that this is only for a CSS
animations/transition that is no longer tied to CSS markup.
This is going to be a lot of work to spec this but I think talking about
a virtual list is probably more clear than sequence numbers and easier
to write.
Best regards,
Brian
