- From: Jake Archibald via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2022 10:57:26 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> In general I prefer describing what the structure _is_ to describing how to build it; Could we achieve the best of both by placing non-normative summaries before algorithms? I could also use https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#trees. The reason I didn't, is it allowed me to be explicit that `::view-transition-old` and `new` cannot have child pseudos, but I could just state that. > The reason DOM needs to define everything in detailed algorithms is because it it has complex input arguments to process and has to time various observable side-effects of the tree-building process such as events. We're not dealing with that here One of the advantages of having linked terms for these things is Bikeshed makes it easy to see where particular things happen. Eg, if a document has a "view-transition root pseudo-element", a `::view-transition`, which defines when the `::view-transition` is rendered as part of the document, then I can navigate the spec by looking for references of that term, which shows me where it's set and unset. I'd like to retain that benefit, rather than going for something unlinked like "the `::view-transition` is in the document from this point". Does that sound ok? -- GitHub Notification of comment by jakearchibald Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8113#issuecomment-1339142914 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 6 December 2022 10:57:28 UTC