- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 17:33:24 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed ``[css-view-transitions-2] Allow an auto-generated `view-transition-name` that doesn't default to ID``. <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <TabAtkins> noamr: there was a resolution previously for the behavior of "auto"<br> <TabAtkins> noamr: where it goes to the ID as a name, then falls back to element-identity<br> <TabAtkins> noamr: Jake raised some good points<br> <TabAtkins> noamr: myself and a few other googlers consulted as well<br> <TabAtkins> noamr: we feel like there's no current good proposal for "auto". we're not against doing something with the word "auto" in the future, but we're not suggesting anything else for "auto" right now.<br> <TabAtkins> noamr: so our suggestion is to remove "auto" from the spec for now. Leave "match-element"<br> <TabAtkins> noamr: then get community feedback, and perhaps redo auto in the future<br> <TabAtkins> noamr: we'll keep "auto" as an invalid name, so we can use it in the future<br> <astearns> ack fantasai<br> <JakeA> q+<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: our position is we think the current definition provides a useful beahvior to authors<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: it does something which is "hey, try to figure out the mapping before and after"<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: in the most obvious way<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: two obvious ways are, does it match IDs, and is it the same element?<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: with ID being more explicit of a signal, so it wins<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: I think the polls about "what auto does" mixes up with a concpet of auto-generated string<br> <bramus> q+<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: if you think about identity about a string, auto could be thought of as genning such a string<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: but that's not what "auto" usually means in CSS.<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: here it's just "if there's some reasoanble auto notion of matching, use that"<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: and this lets us use the same view transition for a bunch of elements without ahvin to name them individuall<br> <TabAtkins> astearns: so would you object to removing auto for now?<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: yes<br> <astearns> ack JakeA<br> <TabAtkins> JakeA: match-element, I think people think it's more useful than it actually is<br> <TabAtkins> JakeA: if you think fo them as page transitions, that's what they're for right now...<br> <noamr> sorry, I have to go. I think this is going beyond the scope of the time-boxed discussion<br> <TabAtkins> JakeA: they don't work in pratice, because parts of the UI get...<br> <TabAtkins> JakeA: we had an overlay in the list we reordered, we ahd to put that int he VT as well, but because it becomes inert that didn't work for us<br> <TabAtkins> JakeA: we need scoped VTs for reordering<br> <TabAtkins> astearns: noam had to leave and we're at timebox - i think i'll cut you off and we'll move on<br> <TabAtkins> bramus: i'll defer to the issue as well<br> <TabAtkins> astearns: so take this back to the issue. It wasn't a quick discussion, we'll bring it up again.<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10995#issuecomment-2489185201 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2024 17:33:25 UTC