Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-shared-element-transitions-1] Renaming and brevity (#7788)

> 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