W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2013

Re: Proposal: will-animate property

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 14:47:42 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLYURPZG8fxpx5g9ZgxNS3g270iiwXLpZE_g6WmewEXs1Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Benoit Girard <bgirard@mozilla.com>, Ali Juma <ajuma@chromium.org>, Matt Woodrow <matt@mozilla.com>, Cameron McCormack <cmccormack@mozilla.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:

> On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:33 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
> wrote:
>
> > That's true for a property like 'buffered-rendering' that appears to
> force a particular implementation. But 'will-animate' is the right level of
> abstraction to give the implementation the information it needs to make the
> right decision. If the decision is "we don't need to do anything special to
> handle animation of this property", that's fine.
>
> I think you are missing the important part of the proposal (with your
> addition). It is not a hint anymore. It changes behavior and limits the
> implementation on the decision if it follows the hint or doesn’t.


Creating a stacking context can't be a problem for any implementation: many
properties already do it, and we keep adding more to that list. That is the
only correctness-affecting behavior change.

Without the creation of a stacking context, I would be a bit less
> concerned, even though I still fear that it can not be used in an
> interoperable way. Implementations *are* different. The proposal would
> require a certain way of implementation so that all user agents can benefit
> of it in the same way which is simply not the case today.


Are you saying that "will-animate:transform" is somehow worse than using
"transform:translateZ(1px)" to indicate the same thing, i.e. what people do
today?

This can be seen on noticeable differences on scrolling, one reason why
> this property was suggested in the first place. You will end up with “Works
> best on Chrome” or “works best on iPad” on web sites very quickly depending
> where the property is more attractive for authors which again probably
> depends on market share (or where the authors makes most money). I am
> pretty opposed to a property that deliberately causes a wider diversity.
> This is not the task of CSS.
>

Currently authors are taught specific hacks to trigger browser heuristics
to get the performance characteristics they need. I think will-animate will
improve that situation, and I fail to see how it could hurt.

It might help if you presented more specific scenarios that you're
concerned about.

Rob
-- 
Jtehsauts  tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy  Mdaon  yhoaus  eanuttehrotraiitny  eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o  Whhei csha iids  teoa
stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d  'mYaonu,r  "sGients  uapr,e  tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
'm aotr  atnod  sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t"  uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n?  gBoutt  uIp
waanndt  wyeonut  thoo mken.o w
Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2013 01:48:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:17 UTC