- From: Khushal Sagar via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 00:02:58 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
+1 to requiring elements participating in a transition to have `transform-style: flat`. My read on the discussion so far is that there is agreement to require isolation, as described by `isolation: isolate`, but we don't need layout containment. I don't have a strong preference on whether isolation should be implicitly applied based on `view-transition-name` or explicitly require developers to add it. I'm in agreement though that if its implicit, it shouldn't be limited to the duration of the transition. Summarizing the 2 options: 1. If an element has a non-none computed value for `view-transition-name`, then `isolation` computed to `isolate`. Less annoying for developers to have to add it but the side-effect on `isolation` could be unexpected. At least it'll be easily observable to devs since the change will be in computed value (not used). 2. If an element has a non-none computed value for `view-transition-name`, the author must ensure it also has isolation for the duration of ViewTransition. Failing to do so causes the transition to abort. This is the pattern being used for layout containment currently. @fantasai @tabatkins do you have a suggestion on which pattern is better based on best CSS practices. -- GitHub Notification of comment by khushalsagar Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8139#issuecomment-1384683541 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2023 00:03:04 UTC