- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:51:19 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Cyril Concolato <cyril.concolato@enst.fr>
- Cc: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, public-appformats@w3.org
(Could I request that you use text/plain e-mails instead of HTML e-mails? I am having great trouble working out what content you are writing and what content you are quoting, and your e-mails do not seem to be searchable using the W3C search tools. Thanks...) On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Cyril Concolato wrote: > >> This is not intended to be the XBL model; the final flattened tree is >> merely what is actually rendered, not what affects the rendering. Since >> animation elements are presumably all display:none, they are not >> rendered anyway and thus the issue of the final flattened tree is moot >> for them. > > This point should be improved in the specification. Fixed. > The general rule in XBL for rendering is: if a child element of a bound > element is not assigned to content element (i.e. not part of the final > flattened tree), it is not rendered. > > One could expect the similar behavior: if a child element of a bound > element is not assigned to a content element, and it is a timed element > (animation or media), it is not animated. One could assume that, but one would be wrong to. Similarly, <style> elements apply whether in the FFT or not. Form controls submit regardless of the FFT, only the core DOM applies. And so forth. Does 'display:none' disable animation? Removing an element from the FFT is equivalent to setting it to 'display:none' in many ways. > - second, you wouldn't be able to design a binding that removes an > animation. What's the use case for that? > Consider the following example, a rect whose color is animated. Suppose > that I apply a binding to all rectangles to remove all sub-animations > for whatever reasons (say I don't like animated rectangles ...). (This isn't a realistic use case.) Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 19:51:28 UTC