- From: Naman Goel via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2023 00:07:33 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> I wouldn't call `header > *` or `nav > a` or even section:has(a:active) an uncommon use-case. Agreed. I was talking more specifically about cases where you don't have access to markup and only have access to CSS as being the uncommon use-case. I think a lot of devs use `header > *` or `nav > a` for convenience and not because they can't change the HTML. --- There are clearly a bunch of intricacies here, so I want to say that anything we discussed would be a huge improvement and overall acceptable. Even this: ```css .box { view-transition-class: box; } ::view-transition-group(* of box) { ... } ``` ---- The problem at the moment is that - transition names need to be unique - So it usually makes sense to generate them (with `useId` in React for example) - This means `::view-transition-group` styles can't be defined statically The `view-transition-class` property would solve the problem. ---- I think based on the discussion above, it is clear that `view-transition-class` property will always be needed for some use-cases, so the argument can be made that we should choose just one more flexible way to do things, rather than adding a bunch of APIs for convenience. -- GitHub Notification of comment by nmn Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8319#issuecomment-1849137911 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 11 December 2023 00:07:35 UTC