[webkit-dev] Adding Web Animations to WebCore

[Dean Jackson]

Hi Brian,

On 23/11/2012, at 12:01 AM, Brian Birtles <bbirtles at mozilla.com> wrote:

>> * At least in its current form, it is overengineered and unusable. An animation API should focus on ease of use, not combining every conceivable animation concept ever invented.
> 
> I'd genuinely appreciate your help with regards to identifying specific concerns and unnecessary features. As for usability, I think the video we released shows it's not entirely unusable.[1]
> 
> If the spec seems long it's simply because it's explicitly specifying much of what is left unspecified in SVG and CSS. It's predominantly composed of features already implemented in CSS and SVG. The number of new features is fairly small.
> 
> That said, I think there are some parts of the API we can tighten up and possibly drop. If you have specific suggestions I would really value your comments at public-fx at w3.org (subject '[web-anim] ... ').

We're planning to send in some comments this week.

> Dean Jackson wrote:
> 
>> As well as Maciej's concerns, I'd like to add that we already have three non-interoperable animation technologies in WebKit (SMIL, CSS and rAF). I think we need to clean this up before adding any more complexity.
> 
> As I'm sure Dean is well aware, the primary purpose of this specification is to unify the SMIL and CSS models. In Gecko I anticipate replacing much of our SMIL implementation with this API as well as parts of CSS. I see implementing Web Animations as an opportunity to unify this code but you know your codebase best and how best to stage the development.

Yes. My point was that we shouldn't simply "Add Web Animations to WebCore" before putting in the required effort on our existing code. We definitely need some cleanup, and I'm worried about unifying around an API that isn't stable.

> I agree that there is certainly some tidying up in order. In fact, in my opinion, quite a lot. Development stalled briefly whilst some of us had other duties to attend to but now we're back on deck and looking to get this into FPWD-ready shape by the end of the year so your feedback is very precious. For example, if you have a preference for abbreviated names or not, then by all means please send feedback to public-fx.
> 
>> This doesn't feel baked enough.
> 
> I tend to agree (just look at how many TODOs there still are).
> 
> It's obviously up to you to decide when is the right time to start implementing. In Doug's defence I'd say he is well aware of how much this is still in flux.
> 
> 
> In summary I just want to acknowledge that there is still much work to be done on Web Animations but that it should start moving more quickly in the coming weeks. As a result, your feedback is particularly valuable at this time.
> 
> I also want to apologise if this caught anyone by surprise. We've been posting to public-fx but I realise that not many people monitor that list. I'll try to send a note to www-style in the coming days to alert anyone else who might be interested.

We'll comment on the W3C list rather than here, but in brief (for those who don't want to subscribe to another list):

- we'd prefer a much more incremental approach
- we feel this bites off way too much for a V1.0 API (trying to address everything at once)
- we'd like to see more declarative support

Dean