My initial review draft: https://github.com/twirl/spec-reviews/blob/master/2013/10/Web%20Animations.md

@twirl thanks for doing this. It seems like you found a spec where we can really make a difference. Your critiques are very solid from what I can see reading the review alone. I will spend more time this weekend reading the spec to understand each of the critiques in more detail, and see if I can add to it. It is a very long spec, but also reasonably interesting, so hopefully that won't be so bad.

If you want to open a pull request then I can comment on particular lines more easily as I go through it. Otherwise we can certainly use this issue.

In fact, the largest part of the spec is a description of different types of animations; I read it not very carefully since I assume that spec authors are professionals in that area. But WebIDL part of the spec is sometimes weird; look at TimingItem - Timing - TimingInput relations. And I have some doubts that current CSS Transitions & Animations can be expressed in terms of Web Animations " without any observable change".

For "ISSUE: Inconsistent naming", the names in web animations actually match the new generation of DOM methods fairly well. See ChildNode, and children also exists (it's the element child nodes). parent seems inconsistent though, I agree.

Where are your slides? They had more than is present in the document.

Also: Blink is looking to implement a small subset of the full API. It would be good to scrutinize that subset to find issues in particular.

For "ISSUE: Inconsistent naming", the names in web animations actually match the new generation of DOM methods fairly well.

Agreed. But there still some differences: DOM ParentNode: firstElementChild, lastElementChild, childElementCount WA AnimationGroup: firstChild, lastChild, no "count" property

Where are your slides? They had more than is present in the document.

They are generally the same, except for one slide about computed style (which provoked the longest discussion, actually). I'm working on incorporating F2F feedback into the draft right now.

I made a pull-request: https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/pull/27 It contains F2F feedback and it was actualized to match latest spec edition.

OK, I looked over the latest feedback draft, and it looks good to me.

I also looked closely at the subset Blink wants to ship, and it looks OK too, modulo the seconds -> milliseconds change which I believe the spec recently fixed. I also think onfinished could be replaced with a .finished() promise per https://github.com/w3ctag/promises-guide/issues/25, so perhaps we should raise that as a possible idea.

I think we should merge it into this repo. I can then add my feedback about a .finished() promise in a subsequent pull request.

I also think that, after my experiences in #3, we should add a disclaimer that this is work-in-progress feedback that we are collaborating on, and will present to the spec editors at a later date.

I think the next major thing is we need @slightlyoff's feedback, as he is closest to the team and familiar with the issues. At the f2f he said he'd look at a few issues, in particular the cloning stuff, if I recall.

In any case we should begin figuring out how best to approach the group to discuss these issues.

I've merged the draft into master. As for finished() vs onfinished - I'd prefer to have them both, since onfinished event indicates exact moment of time when animation finishes while promise doesn't; it might be useful in some cases.

Discussed at London F2F; can close.