W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > February 2012

Re: display:none and mixed SVG and HTML

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 06:28:09 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBqSCS1Nq_7qvOEmRzy65kGiEjbEvaz6DL75mikqUhAKg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 2/2/12 8:30 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>
>> If and only if the elements are referenced, so this doesn't defeat the
>> general optimization where browsers don't create boxes for
>> display:none subtrees.
>
> Oh, and I don't think that's true.  For example, I think it would be really
> weird for transition/animation start/end events on a DOM node to fire or not
> depending on whether that node is referenced from some totally different
> part of the document.  Whatever "referenced" means; if something with hidden
> visibility uses a paint server and the UA optimizes away the painting, is
> the paint server "referenced"?  Having DOM events depend on _that_ is even
> weirder.

Yes, it's still referenced.  visibility:hidden has no user-detectable effects.

I don't find animations working or not weird, at least not any weirder
than the original fact that they don't work on display:none subtrees.

Alternately, we could define that animations *do* work in a <pattern>,
regardless of whether it's in a display:none subtree or not.

> Again, please try to actually think through all the implications of
> proposals, not just the simple cases.

I have.  I just don't have problems with those implications, while you do.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 2 February 2012 14:29:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:50 GMT