Re: [css3-animations] display:none, visibility:hidden and animations

correct.
I'm assuming that mean that the parent has a CSS animation.

Rik

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>wrote:

>  I assume you expect the same for an animation on the parent itself,
> correct ?****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Rik Cabanier [mailto:cabanier@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, October 03, 2011 9:36 AM
> *To:* Sylvain Galineau
> *Cc:* Boris Zbarsky; www-style@w3.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [css3-animations] display:none, visibility:hidden and
> animations****
>
>  ** **
>
> 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.****
>
> ** **
>