[css-image-animation] Should likely rely on Web Animation concepts rather than creating new ones.
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Bikeshed
- Stars
- 4.9k
- Forks
- 816
- PR merge metrics
- PR metrics pending
Description
From a code-review with @DevSDK .
The Web Animations spec spent a lot of time unifying the 3 different animation engines we had previously. See:
https://drafts.csswg.org/web-animations-1/#use-cases
The css-image-animation spec should build off these concepts rather than creating another animation engine. E.g. while initially it may be relatively orthogonal to animations, there are some related concepts creeping in, e.g. cancelling an animation if an element loses its box or similar. The timing of these should be the same as animations, rather than introducing new bespoke timing.
@frivoal
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with the css-image-animation specification and the Web Animations Level 1 use-cases section linked in the issue. Compare the specification's animation and cancellation concepts with Web Animations, then determine the required alignment and document a resolved design in the relevant specification text; no files or tests are identified.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- css
- Domain
- web-dev
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Active
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 30/100