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

Re: Proposal: will-animate property

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 14:20:37 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLZxr1VX7UfrdV4zNEN4-XU0Oj2edueGA90hiwGnafrvJQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ali Juma <ajuma@chromium.org>
Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Benoit Girard <bgirard@mozilla.com>, Matt Woodrow <matt@mozilla.com>, Cameron McCormack <cmccormack@mozilla.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Ali Juma <ajuma@chromium.org> wrote:

> In Benoit's original proposal (where only transform, opacity, and scroll
> were valid values), will-animate values other than 'auto' cause the
> creation of a stacking context. This indeed seems desirable for properties
> that themselves will create stacking contexts when given non-default values
> (e.g. transform, opacity, perspective, and filter). What about for other
> properties (e.g., consider "will-animate: left")? Is it reasonable to
> restrict the creation of a stacking context by will-animate so that it only
> happens when at least one of the properties listed creates a stacking
> context when given a non-default value?
>

I think that's unnecessarily risky for forward compatibility, as well as
being unnecessarily complex.

I would simply say that will-animate values other than "none" always induce
a stacking context.

Rob
-- 
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 Saturday, 30 November 2013 01:21:04 UTC

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