W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2013

Re: :stuck psuedo class WAS: specifying position:sticky

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:44:20 +1200
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLZ=q8UA6SLZw+04bj2a1rWRXOXbUcLkmv4dyTrWx2dUAg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, Corey Ford <cford@mozilla.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:
> >> The problem is that it defeats one of the main optimizations which drove
> >> our creation of a declarative sticky behavior, which is that we want to
> be
> >> able to delegate the implementation of the sticky behavior to another
> >> thread, the thread on which scrolling happens (keeping it off the main
> >> thread means that scrolling can remain responsive even when the main
> thread
> >> is busy doing layout/painting). If we have to do layout when an element
> >> enters or leaves the sticky state, then we’ll have to do that back on
> the
> >> main thread, which would result in a scrolling stutter.
> >
> > You could make the "stuck" state apply lazily, so scrolling wouldn't
> stutter
> > but a shadow (for example) would not appear or disappear immediately.
>
> Similar to :hover, then?
>

In a way, yes.

Rob
-- 
Jtehsauts  tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy  Mdaon  yhoaus  eanuttehrotraiitny  eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o  Whhei csha iids  teoa
stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d  'mYaonu,r  "sGients  uapr,e  tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
'm aotr  atnod  sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t"  uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n?  gBoutt  uIp
waanndt  wyeonut  thoo mken.o w  *
*
Received on Wednesday, 28 August 2013 23:44:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:33 UTC