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

> > 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