- From: Bramus! via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 11:42:10 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> […] a potential 'traffic jam' when authors across multiple components/style-sheets all want different timeliness on e.g. the root element. Multiple timelines on a single container would either override each other, or need to be carefully coordinated in a list declaration.
For Scroll-Driven Animations we have a `root` keyword to hook onto the document scroller. This could also be an allowed value here: `animation-timeline: container(root inline-size);`
As Anders mentioned, additive CSS could also solve this if authors want a named timeline. Same problem space applies to `{view,scroll}-timeline`, so I don’t think this is now more urgent than before.
> If we use an at-rule for defining timelines instead, we avoid that issue – though we're also cluttering a global namespace. It's not clear to us that the property approach is necessarily the better one for this use-case?
Hmm, back in the day the whole scroll-animations-1 spec go rewritten from using an at-rule `@scroll-timeline` to properties. Introducing an at-rule for container timelines feels very – very – inconsistent.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by bramus
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6245#issuecomment-1713711005 using your GitHub account
--
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 11 September 2023 11:42:12 UTC