- From: Noam Rosenthal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2024 16:59:39 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Summarizing internal conversation about this: We're hitting the same snag that we've hit in anchor positioning and view-timeline, where to support `::part` (as in #10303) is problematic because it requires tracking of "where did this style come from", and style doesn't always come from a particular tree scope, e.g. it can come from an inline attribute set by a script that's not from a particular tree. See https://drafts.css-houdini.org/css-properties-values-api/#shadow-dom. In other specs the current direction is to have these names operate on the flat tree, and scope them using a separate property (e.g. `anchor-scope`) rather than using the shadow boundary for this scoping. Perhaps we could have a "soft" encapsulation for this by defaulting these scope property to be contained in shadow roots. In any case, we should be consistent here and in anchor-positining/scroll-driven positioning. Proposing that if anchor positioning and scroll-driven animations don't change course to use shadow encapsulation, including figuring out the "where did the style come from" issue, then we revert the view-transition change so that view-transition-names are in the flat tree to be consistent, and introduce `view-transition-scope` which would be as consistent as possible with `anchor-scope` (will prepare a proposal for that). -- GitHub Notification of comment by noamr Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10145#issuecomment-2206800759 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2024 16:59:40 UTC