Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-view-transitions-2] Should view-transition-group contain or <ident> take precedence (#10639)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-view-transitions-2] Should view-transition-group contain or <ident> take precedence`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: idents take precedence over contain in view-transition-group`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;bramus> vmpstr: regarding nesting with v-t-group<br>
&lt;bramus> … it takes keywords or ident<br>
&lt;bramus> … contain says that all of the v-t descendants are nested<br>
&lt;bramus> … ident says same thing but also element itself will nest on the thing with that ident<br>
&lt;bramus> … q is what happens if an element has a v-t-group with a custom ident and also has an ancestor set to contain – where do we nest this? the contain one or the one with the ident?<br>
&lt;khush> +1<br>
&lt;bramus> … noam and I agree that ident should probably win<br>
&lt;bramus> … seems more specific<br>
&lt;emilio> q+<br>
&lt;bramus> astearns: is this more of an edge case?<br>
&lt;bramus> vmpstr: without having any demos yet this is hard to say<br>
&lt;bramus> … even if its edge case we need to figure this out<br>
&lt;bramus> … I imagine contain being more of a grab-all thing<br>
&lt;bramus> … whereas ident is about specific effect<br>
&lt;bramus> bramus: example could be where you move element from one container to another<br>
&lt;bramus> vmpstr: each of the container would say contain, and the one that you move would be a common ancestor to pop it out<br>
&lt;bramus> … yeah, thats one example where the proposed behavior is the correct one<br>
&lt;noamr> Exactly, it's a *default* rather than something that behaves like a stacking context<br>
&lt;astearns> ack emilio<br>
&lt;bramus> emilio: agree that this seems desirable<br>
&lt;bramus> … is there any use case for actually enforcing the containment?<br>
&lt;bramus> … do we need a strong contain?<br>
&lt;bramus> … I dont think so?<br>
&lt;ydaniv> q+<br>
&lt;bramus> astearns: somewhere along the line of adding a new keyword such as contain-idents?<br>
&lt;fantasai> "contain-all"<br>
&lt;noamr> q+<br>
&lt;bramus> emilio: yeah, like sth to contain everything<br>
&lt;bramus> … but needs a use case<br>
&lt;bramus> noamr: &lt;missed><br>
&lt;astearns> ack fantasai<br>
&lt;bramus> fantasai: first thought that ?? would contain everything but more useful if it didnt<br>
&lt;astearns> s/??/the contain keyword/<br>
&lt;bramus> … concern about the keywords with other features<br>
&lt;astearns> ack ydaniv<br>
&lt;noamr> q-<br>
&lt;bramus> … such as timeline-scope and ?? which dont use that so it seems fine<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/the keywords/the keywords being consistent/<br>
&lt;vmpstr> s/??/anchor-scope/<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/use that/use 'contain'/<br>
&lt;bramus> ydaniv: nearest and ident go on the child and they point to the group … but contain is other way around, right? its the parent that should say that.<br>
&lt;bramus> … seems like different usecases wrapped into the same property<br>
&lt;bramus> vmpstr: q is if parent has contain and child points to above that parent: what is the behavior?<br>
&lt;bramus> … proposal is that ident wins<br>
&lt;bramus> ydaniv: also +1 on ident wins<br>
&lt;bramus> astearns: i might be more sceptical …need use cases and actual uses<br>
&lt;noamr> q+<br>
&lt;bramus> … can see author wanting to scope ident to partciular container but that might be much more complicated that anything actually wanted to do<br>
&lt;astearns> ack noamr<br>
&lt;bramus> noamr: use case is that you have a clipping border-radius container that gets v-t-g:contain so that everything gets contained<br>
&lt;bramus> … but a chat widget inside is FixedPos then the container should not contain the chat widget<br>
&lt;khush> here is an example: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10334#issuecomment-2111871610<br>
&lt;bramus> … its about default ?? semantic instead of stacking contect semantic<br>
&lt;fantasai> re-reading the description of the property at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10334#issuecomment-2165649094 I think I agree that contain should only capture 'normal' elements<br>
&lt;khush> q+<br>
&lt;bramus> vmpstr: opposite case of wher eyou want to contain idents is where you remove it … opposite behavior would be author fighting with themselves<br>
&lt;bramus> … whereas this has usecases<br>
&lt;astearns> ack khush<br>
&lt;bramus> khush: i shared a link to the second comment on the issue which has this use case<br>
&lt;bramus> … so the first example we got from a dev wanted this behavior<br>
&lt;bramus> … added this property to give authors an easy way to contain all except 1 child<br>
&lt;astearns> ack fantasai<br>
&lt;bramus> fantasai: looking back over the original description I agree this is the result of the contain ?? being less precise than we wanted to<br>
&lt;fantasai> -> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10334<br>
&lt;bramus> … when you give sth a group identity its “gorup me under that thing“ but also applies containment to the children but only the ones with the default behavior<br>
&lt;bramus> … its consistent here. both apply containment<br>
&lt;bramus> … ?? specific ancestor to be contained under<br>
&lt;bramus> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: idents take precedence over contain in view-transition-group<br>
&lt;bramus> astearns: objections or concerns or questions?<br>
&lt;fantasai> just as they do for &lt;ident> values<br>
&lt;bramus> RESOLVED: idents take precedence over contain in view-transition-group<br>
&lt;fantasai> (which also apply containment, but only to 'normal' elements)<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10639#issuecomment-2302366592 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:23:51 UTC