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

Re: Proposal: will-animate property

From: Ali Juma <ajuma@chromium.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 16:14:18 -0500
Message-ID: <CANLC6v1sXyVZyEnEbu-64s9OCOxs98bFPLsdZS8gMszdRWphKQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
Cc: Nat Duca <nduca@chromium.org>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Benoit Girard <bgirard@mozilla.com>, Matt Woodrow <matt@mozilla.com>, Cameron McCormack <cmccormack@mozilla.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Ali Juma <ajuma@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> Even if we could automatically infer (from "will-animate: height" on the
>> blue boxes) that the green boxes would be moving, we wouldn't be able to
>> differentiate between the first box (whose content is fixed, and hence
>> worth caching in a layer) and the second box (whose contents are not fixed,
>> and hence wasteful to cache in a layer) without a hint from the author.
>>
>
> It seems to me that the best solution for this example is to specify
> will-animate:volatile (actually I dislike that name, but whatever) on the
> second green box to indicate that its contents change.
>

Agreed, that sounds like the right approach for this. In the future we
might want to consider also having a "will-animate: non-volatile" so that
we can distinguish between elements whose content never changes and those
whose content sometimes changes (but doesn't change enough to warrant
"volatile").

I think the current state of the proposal (where the recognized values for
will-animate are css properties, "scroll-position", and "volatile") looks
good.
Received on Monday, 9 December 2013 21:14:45 UTC

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