Re: Proposal: will-animate property

On Saturday 2013-11-30 01:24 +1300, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> I think we should match the syntax of 'transition-property':
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-transitions/#transition-property-property
> This means that any list of comma-separated IDENTs is accepted as a valid
> value. This is important since it means if the list contains property names
> the UA currently doesn't support, the value is still valid and the UA can
> still optimize for the property names it does support.

Agreed; that avoids future-compatibility error handling issues.

I'm a little worried that there might be overlap between the CSS
property names and the non-CSS-property-name values ('scroll' or
'scrolling').  That could be avoided by adding a functional syntax
around the CSS property names, but that might be overengineering.

I also think the spec should be clear that UAs aren't expected to
make any optimizations in most cases, rather only in cases where
it's useful to know in advance that something will animate.  And UA
documentation, in turn, should document which values are useful.

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                          https://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
             Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
             What I was walling in or walling out,
             And to whom I was like to give offense.
               - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)