- From: Psychpsyo via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2024 07:28:56 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> Not sure if the original comment can be recovered, but here is a copy of it from my mails. @Psychpsyo wrote: > > > Hmm this makes me think that perhaps this is indeed a separate feature, since you should be able to morph the borders and still not capture the contents. That is what @noamr said, not me. > Is there a point in `static cross-fade` though? If we're not capturing the old contents, we could probably still capture the borders etc and morph them. They're unlikely to change anyway and capturing them is cheap. ``static cross-fade`` essentially means "slide this element over but don't capture the contents and also don't capture the borders etc." So it indicates that you only want the absolute minimum amount of transition. The author is given the choice of whether or not they want to capture the borders etc. for regular transitions, why should that choice not exist for optimized ones? -- GitHub Notification of comment by Psychpsyo Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9406#issuecomment-2295854781 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 19 August 2024 07:28:58 UTC