Re: Proposal: will-animate property

On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:33 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:

> That's true for a property like 'buffered-rendering' that appears to force a particular implementation. But 'will-animate' is the right level of abstraction to give the implementation the information it needs to make the right decision. If the decision is "we don't need to do anything special to handle animation of this property", that's fine.

I think you are missing the important part of the proposal (with your addition). It is not a hint anymore. It changes behavior and limits the implementation on the decision if it follows the hint or doesn’t. Without the creation of a stacking context, I would be a bit less concerned, even though I still fear that it can not be used in an interoperable way. Implementations *are* different. The proposal would require a certain way of implementation so that all user agents can benefit of it in the same way which is simply not the case today. This can be seen on noticeable differences on scrolling, one reason why this property was suggested in the first place. You will end up with “Works best on Chrome” or “works best on iPad” on web sites very quickly depending where the property is more attractive for authors which again probably depends on market share (or where the authors makes most money). I am pretty opposed to a property that deliberately causes a wider diversity. This is not the task of CSS.

Greetings,
Dirk

> 
> 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 Monday, 2 December 2013 23:24:41 UTC