- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 11:55:17 -0700
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote: > [Tab Atkins Jr.:] >> They don't generate boxes, but they still have elements in the element- >> tree, and they still receive properties. If you ignore performance >> optimizations, the only thing that display:none really does is prevent you >> from doing "used values", since those are layout-dependent. However, >> transitions and animations operate over computed values, so that's all >> right. > > Right. That was my a-priori mental model. It also maps to what happens if you > animate a bunch of element properties on a display:none element using JS then > give the node its display back in the middle of the loop. Precisely. JS animations work over specified values, but the principle is the same. You know what the values are, and in the case of the display:none element itself, you're not fighting against performance optimizations either. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2011 18:56:14 UTC