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, 10 Dec 2013 10:32:42 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLYOUXX-FdcS=b0qQWa49D-dvC58ExeFX4MVeqkunFFUTA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ali Juma <ajuma@chromium.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 Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Ali Juma <ajuma@chromium.org> wrote:

> I think the current state of the proposal (where the recognized values for
> will-animate are css properties, "scroll-position", and "volatile") looks
> good.
>

Excellent! Can we bikeshed the name "volatile" now? :-)

Actually I'd kinda like to bikeshed the whole thing as follows:
will-change: none | [ scroll-position || contents || <ident> ]
Rationale: Especially when we start describing updates to DOM contents (aka
"volatile"), we're not really talking about just animation anymore.
"will-change" is a bit more generic, but "will-change:transform" still
works for me. Furthermore, I think "will-change:contents" is a lot more
understandable than "will-change:volatile". I don't think we'll ever
introduce a real "contents" property since it would be too close to
"content".

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 Monday, 9 December 2013 21:33:10 UTC

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