- From: Khushal Sagar via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2022 16:10:51 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Thanks for the feedback @fantasai. - I don't see any opposition to picking `view-transition-group` for the node which animations size and position. Since this element will have other `view-transition-group` elements as children (with nested transitions) it also builds off a similar concept in SVG. Added that as the proposed resolution in the first comment. - For the pseudo-element adding `isolation`, I don't see any opposition to using the pattern `view-transition-image-foo`. Having the word image disambiguates it from `view-transition-group` since it can only have 1 or 2 replaced elements as children. The options for foo here are `list`, `pair` or `set` and ideal would be something which indicates that there can be 1 or 2 children - `pair`: Con is the case where there is guaranteed to be only 1 child (enter/exit animations). - `set`: Con is that set makes it sound like the order of children doesn't matter but it does. Also not clear that there can't be more than 2. - `list`: Again, not clear that there can't be more than 2. I'd be ok with pair or list. @astearns @tabatkins any other suggestions? -- GitHub Notification of comment by khushalsagar Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7960#issuecomment-1298769557 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2022 16:10:53 UTC