- From: Noam Rosenthal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 10:06:00 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> With view transitions, we're in a very visual space. So "not there" becomes more of a visual question than a layout question. If we count "partially visible" as "not there", then you'll end up with transitions where the old thing and the new thing are both visible (to some degree) in the transition, but they won't transition as part of the same group, so the user will see double. I don't think that's a desirable outcome of this feature. I can totally see this point. The other side of this is that due to the implementation-specific nature of ink overflow, the outcome of using it here would be that in some cases you'd have elements that are visually 100% outside the viewport (on the edge) participate in the transition even if you gave them `view-transition-visibility: auto` - let's say they have a few pixels of blur that are reserved but not actually rendered, and you'd have no recourse to fixing it (except for maybe using `IntersectionObserver` yourself). Having a property for this (some viewport margin or element clip margin is enough) gives this control to the developer rather than to implementation details that can change at any time. -- GitHub Notification of comment by noamr Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8282#issuecomment-1814136615 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 16 November 2023 10:06:02 UTC