- From: Khushal Sagar via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 14:19:12 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
**Proposed resolution** to go with option 3 from the comment above: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10334#issuecomment-2111871610. One question, what should happen if the author adds `view-transition-parent` to a child but doesn't add `view-transition-tree: preserve` to the corresponding parent? Is `view-transition-parent` enough to opt-in to grouping under that parent or does that parent explicitly need to allow grouping under it via `view-transition-tree`. The pro of requiring `view-transition-tree` is that it aligns closely with `position: absolute` so would make it easier for authors to understand the concept. The con is that if only child under a node wants to be parented under it, then the author explicitly has to set `view-transition-parent: none` for all named elements under that parent. I lean strongly towards not requiring `view-transition-tree` but this comes down to what would be more preferable for authors. So happy to go with either based on developer feedback. @jakearchibald @calinoracation any suggestions? -- GitHub Notification of comment by khushalsagar Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10334#issuecomment-2122748840 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2024 14:19:13 UTC