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 19:05:03 -0500
Message-ID: <CANLC6v0RTgP_iKV+Go3jtYFnyZJw088c+oy-hrM2DSLouFBwCQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benoit Girard <bgirard@mozilla.com>
Cc: "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>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 6:02 PM, 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.
>

If this is confusing, then I think we should make will-animate *never*
force a stacking context, since authors already have other ways to create
stacking contexts when they need them.
Received on Tuesday, 10 December 2013 00:05:30 UTC

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