- From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:35:49 -0700
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 3 October 2011 16:36:18 UTC
Hi Sylvain, If a parent's style goes to 'none', I would expect that nested animation would stop and no longer be animated by the browser. Once the parent goes to non-'none', the children's animation should start over. Rik On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>wrote: > > [Boris Zbarsky:] > > > > On 9/29/11 5:12 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > > I don't believe there are any issues. This is clearly the correct > > > model. There is no reason whatsoever for 'display' to have an effect > > > on what animations run. > > > > That requires UAs to always compute the value of animation properties on > > all elements, including in display:none subtrees. > > > > In particular, this requires performing selector matching and so forth on > > those elements, which is something UAs commonly optimize out now. > > > > I don't believe that this is desirable. Unless I'm missing something > > here? > > > > -Boris > I would agree that from an implementation standpoint, this is not optimal. > We should start with what behavior makes sense for authors, though. What do > you want display:none to do to an element's animation, or one running on a > child > of that element ? Should it pause the animation ? Stop it ? Same question > for > visibility:hidden. >
Received on Monday, 3 October 2011 16:36:18 UTC