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

Re: Proposal: will-animate property

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:09:03 +1100
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCQX77GRxOJKJtQXWFndfLXHRCu-7y8=O5kKd0YaSvc9g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benoit Girard <bgirard@mozilla.com>
Cc: Ali Juma <ajuma@chromium.org>, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Nat Duca <nduca@chromium.org>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Matt Woodrow <matt@mozilla.com>, Cameron McCormack <cmccormack@mozilla.com>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Benoit Girard <bgirard@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Alright I'd like to reach an consensus on how to best handle stacking
> context issues since so far there doesn't seem to have one yet.
>
> Currently forcing a stack context for all usage of will-animate is better
> for forward compatibility. For example 'will-animate: new-prop' would have
> the same rendering for any browsers that supports it. It was said above that
> forcing a stacking context isn't necessary to optimize the content by
> layerizing under certain conditions. Not forcing a layer is handy for
> authors where one wouldn't be otherwise required.
>
> Do any other CSS property have the property that whether they force a
> stacking context depends on their value? It might be confusing to authors
> that will-animate may or may not force a stacking context.

By definition, every property that can cause a stacking context does
or doesn't based on its value; otherwise every element would be a
stacking context all the time. ^_^

But you clearly mean if a property has *non-initial* values that both
do and don't cause stacking contexts.  I think the answer to that
might be no, but I haven't gone through and analyzed things yet.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 9 December 2013 23:09:54 UTC

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