Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-view-transitions-1] Removing the root element should probably skip the transition synchronously (#12149)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-view-transitions-1] Removing the root element should probably skip the transition synchronously`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Disconnecting the VT root should skip the VT sync with timing wrt promises TBD`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;ntim> emilio: I'm not super convinced the current spec deals with it right<br>
&lt;ntim> emilio: the issue is that when you remove the root element, nothing happens sync at the doc level to skip the transition<br>
&lt;ntim> emilio: which means that depending on how you define the active-view-transition, you have a minor issue<br>
&lt;ntim> emilio: where you have an active VT but not a root element<br>
&lt;ntim> emilio: noamr claims that if we remove the root element, handle transition frame would skip the VT, but its not clear to me<br>
&lt;ntim> ...because it depends whether the active view transition is stashed on the root element or the document itself<br>
&lt;ntim> ...the spec says active VT of the document<br>
&lt;ntim> ...I don't think this is dealt with in the spec<br>
&lt;ntim> scribe+<br>
&lt;fantasai> i/OK, I'll post/scribe+ ntim/<br>
&lt;ntim> astearns: we have agreement?<br>
&lt;ntim> emilio: it's edge-casy but I found it during impl<br>
&lt;ntim> noamr: It ties into scoped VT where any element could be a root<br>
&lt;ntim> noamr: we could say removing the element pseudo-tree skips the VT<br>
&lt;ntim> emilio: i think it needs to be explicit since it's observable<br>
&lt;SebastianZ> q+<br>
&lt;ntim> emilio: especially with the new document.activeVT API<br>
&lt;ntim> emilio: we need to specify whether it's sync/asynchronous<br>
&lt;ntim> noamr: it requires a bit of design, but we can resolve on finding a design that skips the VT<br>
&lt;astearns> ack SebastianZ<br>
&lt;ntim> SebastianZ: what would happen if we skipped the VT async?<br>
&lt;ntim> emilio: depends, but you'd be able to observe it via document.activeVT<br>
&lt;ntim> SebastianZ: there would be a jank?<br>
&lt;ntim> emilio: not really, not observable via the rendering, but via the API<br>
&lt;ntim> emilio: the reason it makes sense it's sync, is because you have that edge case where we remove the root element, and I don't think it should keep the VT running<br>
&lt;flackr> s/and I don't think/ and add it again, then I don't think<br>
&lt;ntim> noamr: proposed resolution, disconnecting an element should skip the VT sync with timing wrt promises TBD<br>
&lt;ntim> VT root*<br>
&lt;ntim> RESOLVED: Disconnecting the VT root should skip the VT sync with timing wrt promises TBD<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12149#issuecomment-3200465102 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2025 11:59:44 UTC