- From: vmpstr via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2023 16:37:03 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
vmpstr has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts: == [css-view-transitions-2] :active-view-transition() specificity == In [css-view-transitions-2](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-view-transitions-2/#the-active-view-transition-pseudo), we're adding `:active-view-transition` pseudo-class that activates on the `html` element when a view transition is happening. It also takes some parameters. Some examples are below: ``` /* matches for any view transition */ html:active-view-transition(*) { ... } /* matches a view transition that has "foo" as one of the types specified */ html:active-view-transition(foo) { ... } /* matches a view transition that has any of the following in the types: "foo", "bar", or "baz" */ html:active-view-transition(foo, bar, baz) { ... } ``` This issue is about what specificity this should have. My proposal is that specificity of `:active-view-transition(*)` is pseudo-class-like ([a.k.a. B](https://drafts.csswg.org/selectors/#specificity-rules)) and `:active-view-transition` with any other parameter(s) is twice pseudo-class-like. The justification here is that specifying a parameter seems more specific, but increasing the number of parameters doesn't change specificity since it's a disjunction of types. Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9546 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 1 November 2023 16:37:05 UTC