- From: Noam Rosenthal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 09:30:01 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> > Based on the current spec wording, the view-transition-group for child would be root. > > I thought child in this case would be under `::view-transition` (no parent group). Since `view-transition-group` for child would be `normal` which is spec'd as: "The used value is the element’s nearest containing group name." There is no containing group name in the example above? > > > But there is some logic in having it be parent, as in, when an element becomes specifically nested, it also becomes nesting > > Maybe we need a combo keyword, since in this situation you want parent to be `nearest` and `contain` at the same time? I don't know if there's precedence for this in CSS, defining which keywords can be combined with each other. Lots of precedence actually :) I think perhaps we should make it so that `contain` can be added to any of the other keywords. It would be more readable than the current situation where it's unclear whether a nearest/ident group is containing. -- GitHub Notification of comment by noamr Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10780#issuecomment-2312019347 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 27 August 2024 09:30:02 UTC