- From: Noam Rosenthal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:25:40 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> _(Got my bikeshedding hat on …)_ > > > Perhaps `view-transition-style: crossfade | morph` ? > > The conversation here uses “capture mode“ as a term a lot, so maybe `view-transition-capture-mode` seems better? > > > * Crossfade between the old and new element snapshots, like today (`crossfade`?) > > `crossfade` as a value feels weird here because authors can override the animation to something entirely different. IUC this is the current behavior where you get a flattened surface, so maybe `flat` as a value is better here? Yea, it's whether this property implies "what default transition would this generate" whether "what does it capture". I thought that referring to the default transition style is more design-oriented and referring to the capture is more technical, but perhaps more precise. This is definitely arguable! > > * Display the new content only and morph only the box decorations (`transpose`?) > > This can already be controlled by authors, no? > > ```css > ::view-transition-old(x) { display: none; } > ::view-transition-new(x) { animation-name: none; } > ``` Yea, but doing this in advance is an optimization, see #9406. We can also decide to not fold this optimization in the solution for this issue. -- GitHub Notification of comment by noamr Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10585#issuecomment-2298396119 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2024 09:25:41 UTC