- From: Tim Nguyen via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2023 22:28:22 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I find it unfortunate to see the multiplication of concepts to grasp that are similar but not identical: classes / names / types. I wonder if it would be possible to abstract classes behind names by making `view-transition-name` a shorthand. Full syntax: ``` view-transition-name: none | [<class>+ / <id>] | <class>+ | <id>; view-transition-names: none | <class>+; view-transition-identifier: none | auto | <id>; ``` Example: ``` view-transition-names: name-1 name-2; view-transition-identifier: auto; // generate an ID for this view transition ``` And the short syntax would be: ``` view-transition-name: name-1 name-2; ``` You would use it as: ``` ::view-transition-group(name-1) { } ``` which would match all elements with the name-1 ID or name. The idea is that developers can just use names / classes interchangeably. I'm tempted to only allow selecting with a single "class", since view transition "types" kind of cover the use case of using multiple classes, but if you were to select for multiple classes, this would be possible: ``` ::view-transition-group(name-1 name-2) { } ``` This would match: - something with the class `name-1` and the class `name-2` - something with the ID `name-1 ` and the class `name-2` - something with the ID `name-2` and the class `name-1` -- GitHub Notification of comment by nt1m Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8319#issuecomment-1826915590 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Sunday, 26 November 2023 22:28:24 UTC