- From: Robert Flack via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 17:48:29 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@bramus I agree the original syntax is pretty verbose at the moment and I think the main thing we want is just to solve the use case. Your proposal looks like a nice improvement and seems workable to me. So defining scroll-timeline-name in the absence of a root is an implicit root right? A couple questions came up from @andruud: 1. Handling multiple timelines attempting to attach to the same deferred timeline is complicated. Can we consider this an error? I think it's reasonable to consider this an error (i.e. results in no timeline). In general a developer should have a particular scroller they are intending to observe when they declare a deferred scroll timeline name. 2. Is this intentionally only for scroll timelines? I believe there are strong use cases for observing non-ancestor timelines for both scroll timelines and view timelines so we should have it for both. -- GitHub Notification of comment by flackr Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7759#issuecomment-1481627726 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 23 March 2023 17:48:30 UTC