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

Re: Proposal: will-animate property

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 14:47:42 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLYURPZG8fxpx5g9ZgxNS3g270iiwXLpZE_g6WmewEXs1Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Benoit Girard <bgirard@mozilla.com>, Ali Juma <ajuma@chromium.org>, Matt Woodrow <matt@mozilla.com>, Cameron McCormack <cmccormack@mozilla.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:

> 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.

Creating a stacking context can't be a problem for any implementation: many
properties already do it, and we keep adding more to that list. That is the
only correctness-affecting behavior change.

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.

Are you saying that "will-animate:transform" is somehow worse than using
"transform:translateZ(1px)" to indicate the same thing, i.e. what people do

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.

Currently authors are taught specific hacks to trigger browser heuristics
to get the performance characteristics they need. I think will-animate will
improve that situation, and I fail to see how it could hurt.

It might help if you presented more specific scenarios that you're
concerned about.

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 Tuesday, 3 December 2013 01:48:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:37 UTC