2015-07-15 9:04 GMT+03:00 Shane Stephens sh...@google.com:
This is
slightly better than start time ordering, but not much - for example, it
means that if you've started other animations in the wrong order with
respect to the animation you're about to start, you are out of luck
unless
On 2015/07/15 8:37, Shane Stephens wrote:
(3) It is idiomatic to create animation resources separately from their
scheduling. We've already seen a desire to do things like this with
declarative animation and triggers, or with time sheets.
It seems equally true to say that its idiomatic to
Replying in this thread to maintain the context.
I think that would be good. I'm afraid I can't quite remember why
creation ordering is better or why this proposal is better. I'm not
opposed to it but I'd like to give others a chance to check it over too.
Would you mind writing quick summary
Have we considered just using an explicit priority, with creation time (or
TFI, or some other mechanism) as a tie-breaker?
- Kris
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Shane Stephens sh...@google.com wrote:
Replying in this thread to maintain the context.
I think that would be good. I'm afraid I
Hi Shane,
I definitely agree start-time scheduling is problematic. I was just
interested in why creation-time ordering is better, particularly as
opposed to first-transition-from-idle (let's call it FTFI).
The first two points of your mail were about the problems with TFI which
I agree are
On 2015/07/09 11:30, Shane Stephens wrote:
I wonder if this proposal is a little bit odd in that we have the
following two cases:
a) var anim = new CSSAnimation(...);
anim.play();
b) elem.style.animation = ...;
var anim = elem.getAnimations()[0];
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 12:21 PM Brian Birtles bbirt...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 2015/07/02 15:10, Shane Stephens wrote:
I guess either you're suggesting:
a) Updating animation properties triggers a global sequence number
rewrite (I hope this isn't the case), or
b)
I wonder if this proposal is a little bit odd in that we have the
following two cases:
a) var anim = new CSSAnimation(...);
anim.play();
b) elem.style.animation = ...;
var anim = elem.getAnimations()[0];
elem.style.animation = ;
anim.play();
In (a), the priority of anim
On 2015/07/09 6:50, Shane Stephens wrote:
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 12:21 PM Brian Birtles bbirt...@mozilla.com
mailto:bbirt...@mozilla.com wrote:
Also, I think we need to clarify when these sequence numbers are
updated. Presumably changes to tree order prior to disassociating the
I guess either you're suggesting:
a) Updating animation properties triggers a global sequence number
rewrite (I hope this isn't the case), or
b) Script-animations and CSS animations share the same source of
sequence numbers but when we come to prioritize animations we
don't
On 2015/07/02 15:10, Shane Stephens wrote:
I guess either you're suggesting:
a) Updating animation properties triggers a global sequence number
rewrite (I hope this isn't the case), or
b) Script-animations and CSS animations share the same source of
sequence
On 2015/06/23 8:57, Shane Stephens wrote:
An alternative proposal:
CSS animations use sequence number as priority, and are created in tree-
and list- order. CSS Animations are still prioritized absolutely above
script animations (there are two lists). Changing an animation-name
property triggers
An alternative proposal:
CSS animations use sequence number as priority, and are created in tree-
and list- order. CSS Animations are still prioritized absolutely above
script animations (there are two lists). Changing an animation-name
property triggers an update of all listed sequence numbers.
13 matches
Mail list logo
