- From: Bramus via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:36:31 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
One thing that came to mind while reviewing this is that we are tightly coupling clipping to `view-transition-tree: preserve`. What if we didn’t, and gave authors separate control? - `view-transition-tree: flatten | preserve;` _(Default value: `flatten`)_ - `view-transition-overflow: visible | clip;` _(Default value: `visible`)_ Both properties would inherit. The use-case for this individual control is to do something like https://codepen.io/alexkleinubing/pen/abBzMKe using a View Transition. Imagine having a row of these boxes and clicking one of them grows that box while also scaling+rotating the contained image. Here, you wouldn’t want the image to be clipped by the box while the VT is running. With `view-transition-parent` you can them move groups up the pseudo tree. As for its values I was thinking of this: `view-transition-parent: auto | nearest | <custom-ident>` - `auto` = default = attach to the transition root - `<custom-ident>` = attach to the specificly named ancestor snapshot that was captured with that ident as its `view-transition-name` - `nearest` = attach to the nearest ancestor that was snapshotted - _(* this would require us disallowing `nearest` as a value for `view-transition-name`)_ _(All suggested names and values are up for bikeshedding, of course)_ -- GitHub Notification of comment by bramus Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10334#issuecomment-2163854988 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2024 20:36:32 UTC