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

> The reason we added `contain` was so not all children have to set `view-transition-group` for an example like [this](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10334#issuecomment-2111871610).
> 
> Can you expand on what you're proposing with "nearest and would also act as contain". I'm guessing `<custom-indent>` implies the parent specifying the list of children nesting to it. I feel like that defeats the purpose of having `contain`...
> 
> And not sure how `nearest` would be used if it's on the parent.

Let's say this is the hierarchy
```css
html { view-transition-name: root }
  parent { view-transition-name: parent; view-transition-group: nearest; }
    child { view-transition-name: child; }
```
Based on the current spec wording, the `view-transition-group` for `child` would be `root`.
But there is some logic in having it be `parent`, as in, when an element becomes specifically nested, it also becomes nesting, and exiting the nearest group is the exception. In the last WG breakout @fantasai alluded to this being the essence of how this should work. 

I wanted to either re-affirm the current spec wording (`child` would be not be nested in this example), or the other way (`child` would be nested in `parent` in this example).



-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by noamr
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10780#issuecomment-2310955633 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 19:47:04 UTC