- From: Khushal Sagar via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 16:04:13 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> This won't literally use isolation: isolate in any observable way. Depends on how we want to spec it: 1. A non-none computed value of `view-transition-name` causes the element to generate a stacking context and is a [grouping property value](https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/css-transforms-2/#grouping-property-values). 2. A non-none computed value of `view-transition-name` causes the element's used value for `isolation` to be `isolate`. If the change is in computed value of `isolation`, instead of used, then it will be observable to developers. Since `isolation` already conceptually maps to what we want, could build on that concept. > I think there will be cases where the developer really doesn't want a containing block here. +1. That's why I'm leaning towards no containing block by default, with guidance on how developers can detect and fix common errors (by manually adding `contain: layout` for example). -- GitHub Notification of comment by khushalsagar Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8139#issuecomment-1387314139 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2023 16:04:15 UTC