- From: vmpstr via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 15:08:05 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I mentioned it on the related PR, but I'll mention it here for posterity: I don't believe that requiring the constraints 3, 4, and 5 is equivalent to requiring `view-transition-name` non-`none` value since the latter also requires the `view-transition-name` to have a non-`none` value for the duration of the animation. That was not a constraint we've resolved to have. Having this extra constraint seems to put a limit on what a developer can do while the animation is happening. They, for example, can't remove `view-transition-name`s to set up the next part of the view transition. (That's the only example I can think of, btw) My opinion is that a `view-transition-name` non-`none` value is a convenient way to ensure that all constraints are satisfied, but it should itself not be a requirement. If a developer chooses to satisfy the constraints 3, 4, and 5 in ways other than `view-transition-name` non-`none` value, that should be fine. If the developer needs another convenience CSS (aside from `view-transition-name`) to make sure the requirements are satisfied, then they can probably use one of the `will-change` values or maybe we can add another `will-change` value if none of the existing ones are sufficient -- GitHub Notification of comment by vmpstr Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8548#issuecomment-1463939722 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 10 March 2023 15:08:07 UTC