- From: Tim Nguyen via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2024 16:10:44 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> > If this group is insistent that the behaviours should be unpredictable between SPA and MPA, even in cases where it can be easily avoided, then I think the API should be forked to make this clear to developers. > > That fork is already planned, in the shape of element-scoped view transitions. Seems to me that the examples that are "clearly same-document" fall into that category because the transition is constrained to one part of the page. In cases where the transition is scoped for the whole document, I think we should uphold the design goal of having as match less difference as possible between same-document and cross-document transitions. The astro examples only reinforce this. Seems like a very incoherent model if `element.startViewTransition()` behaved differently than `document.startViewTransition()`. It's even more unpredictable than `document.startViewTransition()` behaving differently than `@view-transition`. > What's making me sad in this thread, is I'm pointing out the footguns of this feature in actual real-world use-cases, and also pointing out how it's harder to teach a feature that has arbitrary branching behaviours, and the counterargument seems to be the assertion that "auto is useful and expected" without any reason or evidence. > My points are being dismissed as being related to frameworks, when they're not, and the counter evidence is a bunch of codepen demos that actually want scoped view transitions. `match-element` is the clearly the right behavior for `auto` in scoped-element transitions. Are we going to make `auto` behave differently there? `attr(id ident, match-element)` is useful in case someone tries to do scoped-element transitions while rebuilding the DOM. Re: arbitrary branching behaviours, how many people are going to hit this? Sure, there's going to be people converting from SPA to MPA, but that's a one time thing, and I don't expect it to happen in the future. Frameworks can choose not to use `auto` if it provides more predictable behavior when switching modes. > What makes these "multi-page" in the cross-document sense? Astro supports both cross-document and same-document mode. Right now auto name generation would not work with either the auto and match-element proposal without changing the DOM and adding IDs everywhere (neither astro examples use IDs in conjunction with view-transition-name)... I wanted to point out these types of use cases would exclusively use cross document view transitions in the future. -- GitHub Notification of comment by nt1m Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10995#issuecomment-2460196135 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 6 November 2024 16:10:45 UTC