Re: [csswg-drafts] [scroll-animations] Broader scope of scroll timelines (#7759)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[scroll-animations] Broader scope of scroll timelines `, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Reduce default scoping to ancestors only, add scroll-timeline-attachment as proposed in the issue`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;emilio> flackr: we previously deferred this, but it came up that this could actually simplify timeline-name lookup<br>
&lt;emilio> ... where if you can define timeline names on ancestors we don't need sibling lookups<br>
&lt;emilio> ... this is probably architecturally simpler and already have a reasonable API for this<br>
&lt;emilio> fantasai: to summarize there's three options: do nothing (lookup would be ancestors and prev-siblings), adapt this explicit exposing mechanism proposed in the issue and narrow default to ancestors only, or narrow it to ancestors only for now but acknowledging we can expand in the future<br>
&lt;emilio> ... [describes proposal]<br>
&lt;Rossen_> q?<br>
&lt;emilio> ... so you can do attachment with my timeline name or saying "I'm an ancestor and I can declare a name etc"<br>
&lt;emilio> q+<br>
&lt;emilio> flackr: there's some hierarchies where this defer attachment is required for<br>
&lt;emilio> ... and it nicely generalizes<br>
&lt;fantasai> scribe+<br>
&lt;emilio> ... so I'd like to adapt it including the stricter scoping<br>
&lt;Rossen_> ack emilio<br>
&lt;fantasai> emilio: Just wanted to confirm that the proposal included dropping the sibling lookup?<br>
&lt;fantasai> emilio: otherwise sounds good to me<br>
&lt;emilio> flackr: yeah I propose dropping sibling and having deferred attachment drop those<br>
&lt;emilio> emilio: sgtm<br>
&lt;emilio> Rossen_: that's option 3 right?<br>
&lt;emilio> fantasai: yes<br>
&lt;bramus> q+<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/3/2/<br>
&lt;emilio> bramus: what's the default mechanism here/<br>
&lt;Rossen_> ack bramus<br>
&lt;emilio> fantasai: it'd look up the ancestors<br>
&lt;emilio> not siblings<br>
&lt;emilio> bramus: so if you want to include preceding siblings you'd have to define the attachment somewhere?<br>
&lt;emilio> fantasai: you'd declare a name in the common ancestor and the scroller would attach to that name<br>
&lt;emilio> flackr: my comment from sept. 7 has an example of this<br>
&lt;Rossen_> q?<br>
&lt;fantasai> PROPOSAL: Reduce default scoping to ancestors only, add scroll-timeline-attachment as proposed in the issue<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/proposed/described/<br>
&lt;emilio> RESOLVED: Reduce default scoping to ancestors only, add scroll-timeline-attachment as proposed in the issue<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7759#issuecomment-1476312797 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Monday, 20 March 2023 14:14:10 UTC