Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-view-transitions-1] CSS selector keywords. (#7960)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-view-transitions-1] CSS selector keywords`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: view-transition-image-pair`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;fantasai> Topic: [css-view-transitions-1] CSS selector keywords<br>
&lt;fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7960<br>
&lt;fantasai> khush: This is about resolving on the selector keywords<br>
&lt;fantasai> khush: last meeting we got through everything except #4<br>
&lt;fantasai> khush: This is a pseudo-element for providing isolation for blending the old and new snapshots<br>
&lt;fantasai> khush: it's a leaf of the tree, only has old and new snapshots<br>
&lt;fantasai> khush: In terms of suggestions for naming, using word 'effect' or 'image', something to indicate that only nodes under here are replaced elements<br>
&lt;fantasai> khush: and need to disambiguate from view-transition-group() which cna change position/size, and can have other view-transition elements underneath it<br>
&lt;fantasai> khush: if we go with view-transition-image-foo, what's foo?<br>
&lt;fantasai> khush: Con of using "set" is that it doesn't indicate that DOM order matters, "list" makes it look like any number of elements but can only have two, and "pair" is nicest but sometimes there's only one element<br>
&lt;fantasai> khush: e.g. if DOM element only exists on one side<br>
&lt;fantasai> khush: but if we're okay with that, my proposal is view-transition-image-pair<br>
&lt;Rossen_> fantasai: +1 to using a pair. conceptually you have two things being transitioned independently<br>
&lt;Rossen_> ack fantasai<br>
&lt;fantasai> fantasai: wrt image, i'm less sure<br>
&lt;fantasai> JakeA: Tab wanted view-transition-images for brevity, but ppl didn't like plural<br>
&lt;fantasai> fantasai: for brevity, could also drop the "image" part and just say "view-transition-pair"<br>
&lt;fantasai> khush: "view-transition-group" and "view-transition-pair" not immediately obvious what's the difference<br>
&lt;fantasai> khush: but I could go either way, "view-transition-pair" vs "view-transition-image-pair"<br>
&lt;fantasai> Rossen_: I think group vs pair will clash for many non-native speakers, but wouldn't object<br>
&lt;fantasai> JakeA: It's not something folks will select a lot, ppl will select it ... I don't know, if they want to remove isolation for some reason?<br>
&lt;fantasai> Rossen_: even more reason to use a longer name<br>
&lt;flackr> Agree with Rossen_, I have a slight preference for view-transition-image-pair for clarity<br>
&lt;JakeA> +1 to image-pair<br>
&lt;khush> +1<br>
&lt;fantasai> Rossen_: Proposed to resolve on view-transition-image-pair<br>
&lt;fantasai> wfm<br>
&lt;lea> as a non-native speaker, I don't think group and pair are that frequently confused. Are there languages that do not distinguish between group and pair?<br>
&lt;ydaniv> +1 to image-pair<br>
&lt;fantasai> Rossen_: objections?<br>
&lt;fantasai> RESOLVED: view-transition-image-pair<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7960#issuecomment-1309096109 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2022 17:27:51 UTC