- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:09:03 +1100
- To: Benoit Girard <bgirard@mozilla.com>
- Cc: Ali Juma <ajuma@chromium.org>, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Nat Duca <nduca@chromium.org>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Matt Woodrow <matt@mozilla.com>, Cameron McCormack <cmccormack@mozilla.com>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Benoit Girard <bgirard@mozilla.com> wrote: > Alright I'd like to reach an consensus on how to best handle stacking > context issues since so far there doesn't seem to have one yet. > > Currently forcing a stack context for all usage of will-animate is better > for forward compatibility. For example 'will-animate: new-prop' would have > the same rendering for any browsers that supports it. It was said above that > forcing a stacking context isn't necessary to optimize the content by > layerizing under certain conditions. Not forcing a layer is handy for > authors where one wouldn't be otherwise required. > > Do any other CSS property have the property that whether they force a > stacking context depends on their value? It might be confusing to authors > that will-animate may or may not force a stacking context. By definition, every property that can cause a stacking context does or doesn't based on its value; otherwise every element would be a stacking context all the time. ^_^ But you clearly mean if a property has *non-initial* values that both do and don't cause stacking contexts. I think the answer to that might be no, but I haven't gone through and analyzed things yet. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 9 December 2013 23:09:54 UTC