[csswg-drafts] [css-view-transition-2] Should non-default `view-transition-group` act like `contain`? (#10780)

noamr has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts:

== [css-view-transition-2] Should non-default `view-transition-group` act like `contain`? ==
Right now `view-transition-group` is a bit inconsistent, because:
- `nearest` and `<custom-ident>` refer to nesting from the descendant's point of view
- `contain` refers to nesting from the ancestor's point of view.

Perhaps it would make more sense that `nearest` and `<custom-ident>` would also act as `contain`? I think the discussion in the WG [here](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10334#issuecomment-2165761156) was sort of saying it but the resolution was ambiguous.

If we do that, what happens when there's an invalid `<custom-ident>`?

cc @vmpstr @khushalsagar @fantasai, also @ydaniv that raised this concern in the last VT breakout.

Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10780 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Monday, 26 August 2024 16:08:50 UTC