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

> > 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; }
> ```

When put into the shorthand is looks pretty concise indeed. I’m OK with this.

> 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).

Got it. That first bullet sold it to me :)

---

Consider me convinced of what we resolved on, with the explicit mention that the `scroll-timeline-attachment` can go in the shorthand.

Still a few minor details/questions:

1. To be clear, the syntax for the `scroll-timeline` shorthand would then become this?
    ```
    [ <'scroll-timeline-name'> [<'scroll-timeline-axis'> || <'scroll-timeline-attachment'>]? ]#
    ```
2. Linking back to @andruud’s [question](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7759#issuecomment-1481627726), there could also be a `view-timeline-attachment` property for View Progress Timelines?
    ```
    [ <'view-timeline-name'> [<'view-timeline-axis'> || <'view-timeline-attachment'>]? ]#
    ```
3. The value of `closest` might need a better name as that might imply sibling at position x+1 _(i.e. the next sibling)_ would be matched instead preceding sibling at position x-2.



-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by bramus
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7759#issuecomment-1488460900 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Wednesday, 29 March 2023 11:53:59 UTC