- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:36:22 +1100
- To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Cc: Ali Juma <ajuma@chromium.org>, 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>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > 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. Agreed. I like this. > 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". Yes, we've avoided doing things with and without an “s” before, and I expect we'll keep that policy in the future. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 9 December 2013 22:37:09 UTC