- From: Jake Archibald via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2024 16:38:53 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@nt1m > `match-element` is the clearly the right behavior for `auto` in scoped-element transitions. fwiw, I don't agree with this. There are many cases where you want to transition between two things that aren't the same element. `match-element` is a good feature for same-document transitions, and it's great that it has a name that reasonably communicates what it's doing. I don't see why folks are desperate to attach a behaviour to `auto` _today_. I think we'll discover much more interesting opportunities in future. One thing I see developers doing it giving `view-transition-name` to too many elements, which aren't changing state either side of the transition. I don't have a solution in mind right now, but it'd be nice if `auto` could tackle that by computing to `none` in cases where a transition isn't needed. > 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`. Then let's shake hands on "incoherence is bad" and drop the incoherent `auto` proposal. -- GitHub Notification of comment by jakearchibald Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10995#issuecomment-2460265581 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 16:38:54 UTC