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 āsā before, and I expect we'll keep that policy in the future. ~TJReceived 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