- From: fantasai via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2022 19:12:26 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> Nesting could allow us to drop the transition word since it would be obvious in the syntax: I was referring to the proposal described in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7788#issuecomment-1261074637 not actually structuring the pseudo-elements. If we're going to use pseudo-element structure, we should drop a lot more of the redundancies in the pseudo-element names, since they'll be scoped by their parent. E.g. ``` ::transition ::transition::view(name) ::transition::view(name)::set ::transition::view(name)::set::old ::transition::view(name)::set::new ``` The main concern I have is how this all plays with the nested transitions extension. -- GitHub Notification of comment by fantasai Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7788#issuecomment-1268844970 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2022 19:12:28 UTC