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

Re: Proposal: will-animate property

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:36:22 +1100
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDD0g8ejfesnGr95dKffqdRos1V0n-QZeV+N6XrbZB8J+Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
Cc: Ali Juma <ajuma@chromium.org>, 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>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> 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.

Agreed.  I like this.

> 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
> "content".

Yes, we've avoided doing things with and without an ā€œsā€ before, and I
expect we'll keep that policy in the future.

Received on Monday, 9 December 2013 22:37:09 UTC

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