Chrome 150 zoom property animatable - #30358
Conversation
github-actions
Bot
added
data:css
|
Tip: Review these changes grouped by change (recommended for most PRs), or grouped by feature (for large PRs). |
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "zoom_animatable": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What do you think of is_animatable? This refers to animation via keyframe animations and transitions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's true for the others as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We talked about this on the BCD call today. Here's where we came down on it:
It's probably right that developers would benefit from a greater emphasis on animatable. Ideally, all of the *animatable* and *transitionable* keys in BCD would use a common ID (probably is_animatable) and description pattern (e.g., Animatable and transitionable (when…)). In cases where transitions and keyframe animations have differing support (there's one example in BCD), we would set partial_implementation. A guideline would cover this and all the applicable existing keys would follow the guideline (there's less than a dozen of these keys).
But that's not the case right now. So @chrisdavidmills, if you're willing to take that on that little project (I'd expect it to be a single PR and I'd commit to reviewing it), then you can have is_animatable here in this PR. Otherwise, I suggest using the more conventional is_transitionable and this will get changed when someone takes up this work (I can file an issue for it).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Cool, thanks, @ddbeck. I've made the two updates that have come out of this discussion:
zoom_animatable->is_animatable- "Animatable
zoom" ->@keyframe animatable and transitionable(I swapped the order so it is alphabetical)
And with that, I will open a new PR to change the other instances to suit. Expect it soon.
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "zoom_animatable": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We talked about this on the BCD call today. Here's where we came down on it:
It's probably right that developers would benefit from a greater emphasis on animatable. Ideally, all of the *animatable* and *transitionable* keys in BCD would use a common ID (probably is_animatable) and description pattern (e.g., Animatable and transitionable (when…)). In cases where transitions and keyframe animations have differing support (there's one example in BCD), we would set partial_implementation. A guideline would cover this and all the applicable existing keys would follow the guideline (there's less than a dozen of these keys).
But that's not the case right now. So @chrisdavidmills, if you're willing to take that on that little project (I'd expect it to be a single PR and I'd commit to reviewing it), then you can have is_animatable here in this PR. Otherwise, I suggest using the more conventional is_transitionable and this will get changed when someone takes up this work (I can file an issue for it).
| }, | ||
| "zoom_animatable": { | ||
| "__compat": { | ||
| "description": "Animatable `zoom`", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For consistency with other entries (though see my longer comment):
| "description": "Animatable `zoom`", | |
| "description": "Transitionable and animatable", |
3 participants
Summary
From Chrome 150 onwards, the
zoomCSS property is animatable; see https://chromestatus.com/feature/5183671737909248.The spec has been updated so that
zoomis now marked as animated by computed value type.This PR adds a new data point for animatable zoom.
From what I can tell (see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1917602), Firefox has always supported animatable
zoom, so I've marked it as supporting this data point from version 126 - when it was first supported.Test results and supporting details
Related issues