- From: fantasai via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 22:46:05 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> This is pretty verbose imo, and I think this should be shorter.
@bramus I don't think it's very verbose?
```
.root { scroll-timeline: carousel defer; }
.scroller { scroll-timeline: carousel ancestor; }
.animator { animation-timeline: carousel; }
```
I'm not super against using a separate property to declare a scope, but having a handshake like this reduces conflicts like some other element defining timeline with the same name and expecting it to bind locally. It also allows for recursion, which re-using the same property doesn't.
> For author convenience, we can maybe also reconsider for the lookup of timelines to remain “up and out” instead of ancestors only? That way no scroll-timeline-root is needed when attaching to a preceding sibling.
There were two benefits to removing the sibling lookup:
* Improves performance and implementation simplicity.
* Removes asymmetry between previous and next siblings, which could cause the author to order things unnaturally in the source (which affects a11y and other operations on the source tree).
--
GitHub Notification of comment by fantasai
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7759#issuecomment-1487700919 using your GitHub account
--
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 28 March 2023 22:46:07 UTC