- From: Khushal Sagar via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2023 19:06:33 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> My argument for option 1 vs option 2 is the same: the old document may also have some state or configuration that the new document doesn't need to be aware of It feels like this doesn't align with David's point, "My interpretation of type is that it tags a transition (e.g. type StreamToItem), rather than a page" but does sound reasonable. Can you think of an example? > The fundamental difference here is whether we want types to be a source of information passing from the old page to the new. I like this line of reasoning. I'm convinced that transitions need information passing between the 2 Documents, but "type" doesn't need to be how that happens. Other APIs (like session storage or navigation) already provide a generic way to do this. And we can add a "oldTypes" attribute to the `reveal` event (or ViewTransition object) if it turns out that type is indeed a preferred way of passing transition related info to the new Document. So at least the default would be option 1 but authors will be able to get option 2 with trivial script. I missed responding to this, "also corresponds to the SPA startViewTransition model where the type is specified only on initiation". The difference between SPA/MPA is that with SPA authors can initiate the transition once all relevant info about the new state is known. But that's not always possible with MPA. So the model for setting types needs to diverge here. -- GitHub Notification of comment by khushalsagar Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9526#issuecomment-1808840343 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 13 November 2023 19:06:35 UTC