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, 10 Dec 2013 10:32:42 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLYOUXX-FdcS=b0qQWa49D-dvC58ExeFX4MVeqkunFFUTA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ali Juma <ajuma@chromium.org>
Cc: Nat Duca <nduca@chromium.org>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Benoit Girard <bgirard@mozilla.com>, Matt Woodrow <matt@mozilla.com>, Cameron McCormack <cmccormack@mozilla.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Ali Juma <ajuma@chromium.org> wrote:

> I think the current state of the proposal (where the recognized values for
> will-animate are css properties, "scroll-position", and "volatile") looks
> good.

Excellent! Can we bikeshed the name "volatile" now? :-)

Actually I'd kinda like to bikeshed the whole thing as follows:
will-change: none | [ scroll-position || contents || <ident> ]
Rationale: Especially when we start describing updates to DOM contents (aka
"volatile"), we're not really talking about just animation anymore.
"will-change" is a bit more generic, but "will-change:transform" still
works for me. Furthermore, I think "will-change:contents" is a lot more
understandable than "will-change:volatile". I don't think we'll ever
introduce a real "contents" property since it would be too close to

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, 9 December 2013 21:33:10 UTC

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