On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Ali Juma <ajuma@chromium.org> wrote: > In these situations, it would be ideal if authors could simply specify the > appropriate "will-animate" property on the green box, and have > implementations infer the effect on the blue boxes. But my understanding is > that this sort of inference is, in general, too expensive to compute > on-the-fly. > Why? > The other issue is what to do when a property in the will-animate list is > one that's inherited (e.g. color, font-size). Should "will-animate" be > inherited too in this case (since the animation itself will be)? > The UA can determine whether the changing font-size of the will-animate element will be inherited. We don't need to explicitly inherit will-animate as well. Taken together with the issue of how to future-proof the stacking context > rules, all of this has me wondering whether, instead of a list containing > any property + scroll, we'd be better off starting with something more > constrained, like: > > will-animate: [auto | [ transform, | opacity, | scroll, | positioning, | > size, | appearance ]+ ] > > where the presence of transform, opacity, or scroll in the list induces a > stacking context, and where "appearance" is intended to cover non-size > non-positioning changes like color and background-color. > > This approach seems to cover all the use cases that have been raised in > this thread, and saves authors from potentially specifying long lists of > properties that mostly make no difference (a concern that Benoit raised > earlier). The list could still be grown in the future if implementations > find that more granularity is needed > > Thoughts? > The problem with that approach is that when some browser adds new-property and extends will-animate syntax to support new-property, and an author writes "will-animate: transform, new-property", other browsers get no will-animate at all. 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, 4 December 2013 22:00:37 UTC