- From: Noam Rosenthal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:42:23 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> > I share Vlad's concern that making the types mutable will significantly increase the conceptual burden that authors have to understand. I'm not sure I fully grok the timing of it and I'm fairly well versed in the implementation. I suspect the view transition state machine will be much more of a black box to authors. For SPA, sure. I don't think we should march forward with #9542 just yet. For MPA, this is only for developers who define different types in different documents. The simple case is the same in all the options: have the same types. Regardless of SPA though, the way I see the other alternatives is: 2-3 (combine old and new): the combination only happens in the new document. The old document only uses own types. so the types in the old and new document would not be the same anyway. 4-5 (strictly the same): in both 4 and 5 we somehow override something the author intended to do, either by ignoring it or by skipping the whole transition. (1) doesn't have either of these issues. -- GitHub Notification of comment by noamr Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9526#issuecomment-1813156516 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 15 November 2023 19:42:25 UTC