- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2023 23:12:28 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-view-transitions-1] Move CSS View Transitions Level 1 to CR`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: We ask for CR transition for view-tranistions L1` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <dael_> khush: Got a lot of excellent feedback last time. I mentioned changes since last discussion. Horz. reviews are done.<br> <dael_> khush: No response to security.<br> <dael_> khush: No inline issues in spec. Covered a good chunk at F2F. fantasai did a full review of spec, thanks for that<br> <dael_> khush: Any remanining issues are editorial<br> <khush> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-view-transitions-1/#viewtransition-process-old-state-captured<br> <dael_> khush: One spot where I could use a suggestion is ^<br> <dael_> khush: When doing the ED for L2 spec with the cross-doc API it was unclear how to hook into the L1 code. During corse of navigation we capture an object and then want to resume.<br> <dael_> khush: L2 sets up object, creates and object that's opaque. L2 then resumes. [missed]. Other than that I don't think there's anything remaining to push to CR<br> <dael_> astearns: Reason to put that into L1 algo is what?<br> <dael_> khush: L2 desc steps specific to cross-doc navigation elements. A bit intertwined with L1 sets that create view transition object and capture everything and in same doc allow render. In cross doc you take, cahce, and render to other doc. Unless it's all in same spec it's hard to capture all of this. We did the opaque step to capture it.<br> <dael_> khush: In HTML it's one spec so you just add, but wasn't sure better how to do it here<br> <dael_> chrish: is this blocking the spec?<br> <dael_> khush: No<br> <dael_> chrishtr: so it's a nno op in l1?<br> <dael_> khush: Yes, it's a no op<br> <dael_> chrishtr: Sounds look good feedback, but orthogonal<br> <dael_> astearns: Seems odd to have in module level when the thing isn't in the module level. I think it's fine to have it or not have it<br> <dael_> khush: When we're far into the L2 we can figure out best way to structure<br> <dael_> astearns: Second question, I'm assuming changes are all up to date?<br> <dael_> fantasai: I did a line by line review in June and filed issues then which we discussed a couple weeks ago. haven't specifically reviewed changelogs<br> <khush> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-view-transitions-1/#changes<br> <dael_> khush: End of spec has an appendix with all the changes<br> <dael_> astearns: Any other questions or opinions on going to CR with view transitions L1<br> <dael_> astearns: Not an issue for going to CR, how is the test suite?<br> <dael_> astearns: Do we have the start of a test suite?<br> <dael_> khush: There's lot sof WPTs for this<br> <dael_> fantasai: One thing I would say is process old state capture thing probably could be better explained. That's editorial and doesn't need to block CR. I'd say fine to go to CR. It will take a few days to get all the thigns through and in the meantime we can look at editorial issues<br> <dael_> astearns: Prop: We ask for CR transition for view-tranistions L1<br> <dael_> astearns: Obj?<br> <dael_> RESOLVED: We ask for CR transition for view-tranistions L1<br> <dael_> khush: Thanks everyone for the feedback<br> <dael_> fantasai: We should also publish a WD today so state of draft is updated<br> <dael_> astearns: Yes, that'll make publication easier<br> <dael_> khush: One PR yet to land so publish after that?<br> <dael_> fantasai: Yes, and editorial changes don't need CR approval<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8878#issuecomment-1663084126 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 2 August 2023 23:12:30 UTC