- From: Khushal Sagar via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:10:21 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> We actually have an explicit paint ordering for the view-transition-names so I think it'd make sense to order ::view-transition-group based on that rather than lexographically. That's how its in the spec today, see the text [here](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-view-transitions-1/#capture-the-old-state:~:text=We%20iterate%20in%20paint%20order%20to%20ensure%20that%20this%20order%20is%20cached%20in%20namedElements.%20This%20defines%20the%20DOM%20order%20for%20%3A%3Aview%2Dtransition%2Dgroup%20pseudo%2Delements%2C%20such%20that%20the%20element%20at%20the%20bottom%20of%20the%20paint%20stack%20generates%20the%20first%20pseudo%20child%20of%20%3A%3Aview%2Dtransition.). We actually rely on the DOM order of the group pseudos to make sure their paint order in the pseudo-DOM matches their paint order in the author DOM. -- GitHub Notification of comment by khushalsagar Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9588#issuecomment-2018922346 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 25 March 2024 21:10:22 UTC