Discussion:
[Houdini] Minutes Tokyo F2F 2017-04-18 Part I: Worklets, Animation Worklet
(too old to reply)
Dael Jackson
2017-05-15 08:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
=================================================
These are the official Houdini Task Force
minutes. Unless you're correcting the
minutes, please respond by starting
a new thread with an appropriate subject line.
=================================================


Worklets
--------

- RESOLVED: import() to be renamed to addModule().
- RESOLVED: Change preferred import to use <link> over <script>.
- RESOLVED: Publish a new working draft for worklets, pending the
changes we discussed today.

Animation Worklet
-----------------

- Some potential uses of an animation worklet were shown:
http://googlechrome.github.io/houdini-samples/
- There was debate as to if this should live on its own or be a
part of web animations which will need more discussion.

===== FULL MINUTES BELOW ======

Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/css-houdini-drafts/wiki/Tokyo-F2F-April-18-2017

Present:
Rossen Atanassov, Microsoft
Tab Atkins, Google
L. David Baron, Mozilla
Brian Birtles, Mozilla
Bogdan Brinza, Microsoft
Rick Byers, Google
Emil A Eklund, Google
Elika Etemad, Invited Expert
Rob Flack, Google
Simon Fraser, Apple
Dean Jackson, Apple
Ian Kilpatrick, Google
Chris Lilley, W3C
Peter Linss, Invited Expert
Jack Moffitt, Mozilla
Xidorn Quan, Mozilla
Hiroshi Sakakibara, BPS
Simon Sapin, Mozilla
Alan Stearns, Adobe
Shane Stephens, Google
Majid Valipour, Google
Lea Verou, Invited Expert
Jet Villegas, Mozilla
Philip Walton, Google
Masataka Yakura, observer

Scribe: eae

Worklets
========

Rossen: Let's start with worklets.

import() name is potentially confusing
--------------------------------------

<iank> https://github.com/w3c/css-houdini-drafts/issues/374
iank: There is the feedback from various people that the import
method on worklets is confusing, similar to import statement
in javascript which is somewhat similar but not really. Any
preferences for another name? Looking for feedback.
iank: Leading proposal is Worklet.spawn
Rossen: What is the history here? Feedback from people trying to
use it?
iank: Mostly feedback from annevk.
iank: The main push back was that the script can end up running
multiple global scopes which is a bit unique.
iank: This was seen as confusing.
philipwalton: Definitively not import.

iank: Any other preferences?
philipwalton: Could you clarify what it would be spawning if we go
with spawn.
iank: It is not really creating anything new, it loads a script
into multiple global scopes. Not really spawning.
iank: Another suggestion is loadModule. Primary push back there is
that it looks similar to system.import which loads into the
current global scope.
philipwalton: Any discussion around how this would interact with
ES6 modules?
iank: Would just work.
philipwalton: Other workers have the importScript function?
iank: Yes and that would load into the current global scope.
iank: dbaron, any preferences?
dbaron: Not really.

philipwalton: If the only difference is that it loads into
multiple global scopes the name should reflect that.
dbaron: When you described what it does you used the word load....
iank: Propose that we switch it to loadModule and see if there is
any pushback for that specific name.
Rossen: Sounds good to me.
jack: I don't like spawn.
flackr: Sounds like ES6 load module but does something
differently, my only concern.
iank: You need to have at least one global running. Your code will
get immediately executed but if another global scope is
spawn it'll load into that as well.
iank: The paint specification for instance requires at least two
global scopes at all times (unless under memory pressure).

rbyers: Perhaps register instead?
flackr: addModule?
iank: I could live with addModule.
iank: Will update github issue to propose addModule and await
feedback.
Rossen: addModule is the final proposal for now?
philipwalton: I kind of like registerModule better but add is fine.
Rossen: In summary, addModule is much preferred over import or
spawn. Unless there are other proposal I suggest we
resolve to rename it to addModule. Any objections?

RESOLVED: import() to be renamed to addModule()

<script> tag import feature design
----------------------------------

<iank> https://github.com/w3c/css-houdini-drafts/issues/376
iank: This topic is the design of the import. We could use a
script tag or a link tag.
iank: The script tag basically works as outlined in top comment of
issue. Effectively you'd have a new type, i.e.
type=paintworklet, always loads as module. Either with a src
or inline.
iank: The link tag version is basically what service worker does.
Dominic outlined the proposal in comment 3 on the issue.
iank: There are pros and cons for each.
iank: Pro for script tag is that it matches what people do today
and works with data urls. The downside is that it is running
some code in a different global scope which is new and
changes the script process model.
iank: It is easier for implementers to implement the link type but
more powerful for authors to use a script tag.
eae: Optimizing for what is best for web developer has my vote.
Rossen: No opinions?
<nainar> Same for me
iank: I could also defer to TAG on this one.

dbaron: My only thought is that if there is a similarity with
service worker it would be nice to use the same
functionality with different names rather than have
different approaches.
till: Related, the hack with the two instances of a worklet to
avoid global state. Clearly not ideal but better than not
having a way to discourage state. A way to maybe deal with
this would be to have an execution context that cannot store
global state. The syntax for loading worklets doesn't allow
us to change how they are loaded right now. Would it make
sense for this to be versioned to possibly allow for another
execution context down the line?
iank: I think both proposals could handle that.

iank: Taking dbaron's feedback into account it sounds like the
link tag is preferable.
dbaron: I don't know how close this is to service worker.
dino: Closer to service worker than inline so makes sense.
philipwalton: You said in the first comment that there was various
sources of feedback. Was any of it about supporting
situations with js enabled? Would a link tag work in
those cases?
iank: Think that is a UA decision.
iank: If browsers have a preload scanner that could apply to
<link> tags.
iank: With a <script> tag and data url the memory cost would be
higher, possibly.
philipwalton: link makes more sense to me.
Rossen: Sounds like we have consensus around link.

RESOLVED: Change preferred import to use <link> over <script>

Adding CSP to worklets
----------------------

iank: Adding CSP to worklets.
till: One further question. What is the plan for when to use the
different global scopes.
iank: Initially for paint we'll likely have two globals and might
shut one of them off and re-spawn occasionally.
iank: When we see issues we plan to limit it to one under memory
pressure, the exact policy is not yet clear.
jack: One thing that would be nice would be to make the spec
language allow other approaches than using two global
scopes. I.e. if there is another way to limit global state.
iank: My opinion is that frozen realms would be hard to implement.
Freezing globals on the global scope on start might work but
it has some down sides.
dbaron: Would frozen realms cause JS errors where there weren't
any before?
till: Yes.

iank: The one piece missing is the requirement that all of the
globals share one fetch response map.
iank: When I did the first pass of worklets it was reasonable easy
to separate.
dino: Has anyone else started implementing?
iank: I thought there was some momentum on the firefox side for
paint worklets.
Jet: We have an implementation going.
<jet> Mozilla Worklets bug:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1329166
dbaron: There was some implementation work for worklets themselves
but nothing specific yet.

Rossen: Is there anything on the status updates you want to fill
in?
iank: No.
Rossen: The current working draft is almost a year old, could you
update that please?

RESOLVED: Publish a new working draft for worklets, pending the
changes we discussed today

Animation Worklet
=================

<nainar> The spec is here: https://wicg.github.io/animation-worklet/
[flackr to present a demo using dbaron as a proxy]
<flackr> polyfilled demos are at:
http://googlechrome.github.io/houdini-samples/
<rbyers> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Feb/0769.html

rbyers: Brief introduction. First of all, a little over three
years ago I said we didn't want to do snap points in blink
and instead focus on primitives. I was wrong. Took much
too long for us to get the primitives. We have now shipped
position sticky and snap points the same way as everyone
else. We still want to do the primitives though so that we
don't have to do one offs for all future features like
this. We want the low level primitives to be available, a
way to change transforms based on custom properties and
scroll position off the main thread.
rbyers: Opacity as well and there could be more.
flackr: The idea is to present what is currently possible using
low level primitives.
rbyers: At TPAC we presented a slimmed down version, no longer
runs on the scroll thread instead uses a worklets. Do not
want to special case and do what animations do. Allow UA
to choose to run off main thread or not depending on
capabilities.
rbyers: Focus on performance isolation for animations from JS.
rbyers: We have a polyfill and demo and hope to have an origin
trial and data to share by the time we meet again in Paris.
rbyers: Big picture, any questions before we do the demo?

rbyers: Origin trials is a mechanism in chrome to allow developers
to experiment with experimental APIs for a limit time and
with limited reach. Was an idea at TPAC a few years ago.
Now in chrome.
rbyers: Time limited and usage limited, can be taken away at any
point.
dbaron: The one other comment, it would be useful to have the big
picture summary in the spec. Rather than going straight
into details.
rbyers: In the spec and not the explainer?
dbaron: The part about which thread it runs on in particular.
dbaron: Deserved to be in an introductory section. The explainer
also has not been updated.
rbyers: Will file issue about it.

flackr: If you go into the examples and open up the spring one and
then bring up the dev tools to show the source.
flackr: http://googlechrome.github.io/houdini-samples/animation-worklet/spring-timing/
flackr: This specifies the name of an animator which will be
accelerated.
flackr: Then you can have custom properties that are sent over.
flackr: Call to import the worklet, polyfill-animation-worklet
flackr: We register the animator with the name we specify in the
other file. Name of the slots. Outputs transforms. This
declares which timelines feed into the worklets. Plan to
support two timelines, document (performance.now) and
scrolling.
flackr: You can specify the timeline.
flackr: CSSOM transforms are used to avoid string parsing.
flackr: The idea is that when you instance this animation every
time you want to produce a new animation frame you would
call this animate function with the timeline. It will
change some of the properties, if they are all fast
properties it would go on the compositor thread, if not
it'll go on the main thread. It can have a deadline, if
the animate calls are taking too long we can chose to use
the previous values which would update in a performance
isolated fashion but no longer be in sync. Shows the basic
idea.
flackr: Some of the other demos shows how it would work with
scroll input.

smfr: I would prefer to see this use web animations.
smfr: I don't think we want a whole separate way to do animations.
rbyers: We don't want to limit us to the expressiveness of web
animations.
smfr: Then shouldn't we expand web animations to support that?
iank: Could plug into web animations.
iank: You could pass in all the element and that would be your
hook into the web animation.
flackr: I should have mentioned that, we have a plan for a way to
express this as a web animation.
majidvp: Another idea is that perhaps we can instantiate a
keyframe effect and assign it as output and use a
different effect to sample and output. We could have a
state here where you.
flackr: We have examples that show where you do more complex
effects.

birtles: Seems like this example doesn't need state; could just be
a script timing function.
birtles: We spoke briefly last night and I'd like to see how the
pieces align, I don't think this is a good example using
animation worklets. What if it has state?
flackr: You can instance separate ones for each root and run them
in parallel.
flackr: The idea for state is to store it on the instance of the
animator, we could have a function that allows you to
store state before the instance is destroyed.
birtles: It does restrict a little bit the optimizations that user
agents can do. I want to make sure that restriction is
warranted.
rbyers: That is true for all animations today. No one is saying we
should eliminate rAF as it limits UA optimizations.

birtles: What are the uses cases with state that couldn't be done
without it.
rbyers: You could probably do most with the combination of snap
points and scroll linked animations.
rbyers: Killer use case which we struggled with for years is pull
to refresh.
rbyers: Another example is something like google maps where you
have pinch zoom and panning with tiles. Can't be solved
with the MVP but we can add onto it.
rbyers: Original proposal supported this but was too complicated.
dino: How does maps work today?
rbyers: Needs to handle input on main thread and struggle with 60
fps.
rbyers: With animation worklets panning and scaling could happen
at 60fps on an animation thread.
dino: The events are still coming in on the main thread, how would
that work?
rbyers: Wouldn't work in the MVP, we'd need to be able to pass
input events to the animation worklet.
dino: Seems like a lot of information, not just raw events.
dino: It is always the only example we come up with. Are there
other examples that require state?
rbyers: We have more examples.

flackr: Sticky spring example is stateful.
<eae> http://googlechrome.github.io/houdini-samples/animation-worklet/spring-sticky/
flackr: A couple of boxes that are trying to stick to the viewport
and each other.
flackr: Has a rubber band effect, sticking to box above it with
some springyness.
flackr: Example of effect where we'd need state.
flackr: Scroll input is coming to this through the scroll timeline
that I mentioned earlier.
flackr: It looks at the nearest scrollable element to the root of
the animator.
flackr: It provides this as a scrolling timeline to the animator
js.
flackr: Scroll timelines do not tell you the actual scroll offset,
provided as custom properties.
flackr: We intentionally been vague about scroll timelines in the
spec.
birtles: What's the synchronization concept?
flackr: You'd get the new values at the next frame.
flackr: On the main thread you'd have the values from the last
compositor frame. The result of the previous main frame.
birtles: The compositor could keep ticking ahead but the main
thread needs to be kept in lock step.
flackr: You get the value that was provided by the previous main
frame.
flackr: The key thing in this example is that we added state to
the instance. Velocity and position. Track the momentum
for each box.
iank: It should be noted that we could still kill these things but
we wouldn't do that during a user gesture.

flackr: We have an example of a case where we need to coordinate
animations between multiple elements too
<eae> http://googlechrome.github.io/houdini-samples/animation-worklet/expando/
flackr: There is a top level element that is a circular clip. The
second element has a counter effect to the parent that
clips it. It cannot be exposed in the current system as it
is the inverse to the other element. This is an example of
a real effect used by many native applicators. Shows how
one would coordinate the effect between multiple
animations.
flackr: The counter scale is the inverse of the scale of the clip.
flackr: Clip paths can be complex, can have paths. This one is
simple, just a circle.
birtles: I think this could be expressed as a group effect from
Web Animations level 2 -- assuming that happens.
flackr: We did this without animation worklets by using a lot of
keyframes to approximate the inverse effect.
flackr: Not a linear combination. A curve that you cannot describe
with the current animation spec.
flackr: I think this describes that we're thinking.
majidvp: The slot on the root element is optional.
majidvp: In this case, the root has some sort of effect.
flackr: If this was a typical web animation each element would be
an animation root.
flackr: To allow for coordination we have roots and non-roots.
jack: It seems like these examples are the worst possible ways to
do this. Would be nice if the default did the right thing.
<dbaron> jack, was the point that you want the animation root as
deep as possible in the tree?
<shane> dbaron: I think jack wanted that, yes. Specifically the
animation root should *be* the animated element unless
otherwise specified by the author.
<jack> dbaron: yes. we want default to be maximal parallelism
<jack> whereas now it is minimal

smfr: It is far to say that it is using the timeline, should the
timeline express a hierarchy of some kind?
smfr: It seems like you are building a slightly declarative
version of web animations.
smfr: Not quite explicit relationship between what you are
describing and web animations.
flackr: Perhaps we need a way to describe this in javascript as a
web animation?
smfr: I'd like to see this built on top of web animations.
flackr: We have ideas for that, I could write it up.
rbyers: If we layer it on top of web animations we limit it to web
animations.
smfr: Then we should update web animations to support that.
jack: Specifically the animation root should *be* the animated
element unless otherwise specified by the author.
smfr: It still feels to be in general that web animations should
be the canonical animation framework and the layer things on
top of it.

<rbyers> Jack's issue with the bad default for roots:
https://github.com/WICG/animation-worklet/issues/51
<rbyers> dbaron's earlier issue with spec introduction:
https://github.com/WICG/animation-worklet/issues/50
* astearns thanks rbyers for the real-time issue generation

rbyers: There was talk awhile ago about custom animations, is that
dead?
birtles: At the moment, yes
rbyers: If we could come up with a way to extend web animations we
could use that. Would have to be worklet based.
iank: In my mind the way that this links to web animations is that
the default web animation coordinator is in the document and
this can replace that. Instead of multiple timelines you
have a single timeline for the document.
birtles: Another direction would be to extend web animations to
allow script to define timelines.
flackr: I think of this a script defined timeline.
birtles: hierarchical effects in this particular case.
birtles: The ability to target multiple elements.
iank: What do you see as the capabilities of scripted effects for
web animations?
birtles: We had a proposal at some point - you would get timing
input and could do anything. Was problematic.
iank: Problematic in what way?
iank: Assuming it would run on the main thread.
iank: You can receive a bunch of elements at this point in the
timeline and then be very explicit what you can do with
those elements.
birtles: An example is animation a string, like 1 to 100. For that
use case touch input and timing wouldn't be sufficient.
iank: No way to do that in CSS today without using content. And
that would run on the main thread.

shane: Coming back to the point about making this look more like
web animations. Web animations doesn't yet have a
procedural main thread API.
shane: This would present to web pages as another version of web
animations.
shane: I think the idea of this slotting into the web animations
framework should be quite doable.
birtles: Fine to fill in the gap later but we need a story.
rbyers: Just to make sure I understand the concerns. You also want
it to be driver by web animations. Do you want the
animations to be driver by a timeline?
rbyers: This is in many ways more driven by raf.
<iank> https://gist.github.com/bfgeek/7710d6283675c4494b92e7e28bc7f6c9
birtles: My concern is that there is a consistence problem.
Timelines can be raf driven, maybe that is usable still.
Want to see how it fits together.
birtles: Would like to see how it fits in with a declarative API
as well.

rbyers: The thing that has always made me uneasy with that is the
level of abstraction. Fingers on screen as an example.
Would each finger have a timeline? Feels like an inversion
of the abstraction level.
rbyers: Maybe we have a timeline at 60hz and a way to get the
fingers.
smfr: Wall clock time is fine but we also have input, having
different timelines and inputs depending on use case.
iank: You could expand it so that in addition to the timeline it
could be fed keyframes and have that drive it?

iank: Would you prefer to see a web animation API over a CSS
version of animation worklets?
birtles: They should all fit together.
shane: Do you mean you would prefer to see a rough spec of the API
or prefer to ship a JS API.
birtles: We should try to do both at the same time, not one or the
other.
smfr: I would like to see a web animations v2 draft that animation
worklets could be built on top of.
iank: We have gone back and forth a bit internally about which
order to do these.
birtles: We have only shipped a small subset of web animations so
far, still room to change for level one to allow these
things.

Rossen: Quick time check. Time for a break soon.
Rossen: A lot of feedback about a strawman about web animations vs
animation worklets. Makes sense and we have the right
people for this. Was there anything else we want to go
though?
* fantasai in favor of investigating declarative solutions in
addition to JS ones, as a general principle
rbyers: Specific AI is to hash up an explainer this week.
iank: Syncing properties, running inside web animations. Things
like that might need more discussion.

<br len="10min">

Loading...