Tab: > Hmm, that's more subtle then. I *would* still like animations to run > on display:none subtrees - the fact that we optimize subtrees away > here seems like it could surprise authors at times, because it's > detectable now. > > However, I'm much more concerned about animations on display:none > elements. The justification for subtrees is understandable, but > stopping or pausing animations on display:none elements themselves is > just wrong. There's no efficiency justification for it, and it'll > definitely be surprising when we gain the ability to animate > 'display'. http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#display-prop #9.2.4 The 'display' property #none #This value causes an element to not appear in the formatting structure #(i.e., in visual media the element generates no boxes and has no effect #on layout). Descendant elements do not generate any boxes either; # the element and its content are removed from the formatting structure #entirely. This behavior cannot be overridden by setting the 'display' #property on the descendants. #Please note that a display of 'none' does not create an invisible box; # it creates no box at all. CSS includes mechanisms that enable an element # to generate boxes in the formatting structure that affect formatting but # are not visible themselves. Please consult the section on visibility for details. So, Tab, you want an element that ... - does not appear in the formatting structure - generates no boxes - has no effect on layout - has its content removed from the formatting structure entirely - creates no box at all ... to react to animation properties? How and why? It seems both "technically troubling" and "conceptually conflicting" with the the quoted "display:none" description.Received on Monday, 3 October 2011 19:17:00 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:05 UTC