- From: Khushal Sagar via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2022 19:47:52 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> In your extended proposal, this is the element that creates hierarchy, right? That's exactly what groups do in SVG. By extended proposal I think you mean [Nested transition containers](https://github.com/WICG/view-transitions/blob/main/explainer.md#nested-transition-containers). And yes, this will be the element which will have other container/group elements as children with that proposal. > Doesn't seem like a good fit for what is, afaict, only ever going to be two images (one of which might be empty)? With the current API it can be 1 or 2 images. 1 in the case where a `view-transition-name` exists only on the old or new DOM. In that case the other replaced element is not generated. This is different from it being empty since no node (and box in the box tree) will be created for it. > Are you thinking there will be three images in some future revision? @_@ That comment was just to note a consideration for future flexibility. Given that we have no extension planned that could have more than 2 nodes, please disregard it. The only argument against `pair` (in the comments above) is that it's possible to have 1 replaced element under this element. -- GitHub Notification of comment by khushalsagar Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7960#issuecomment-1295397531 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 28 October 2022 19:47:54 UTC