Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-view-transitions-2] [scoped] Clarify the ::v-t box and stacking context position relative to the scope (#12324)

I've summarized the couple of options discussed and concerns about those below:

1. Make scope `view-transition-name` optional and have `view-transition-group: contain` by default. In a situation where `view-transition-name` is `none`, this construct `::view-transition-group(-ua-root)` and `::view-transition-group-children(-ua-root)` but none of the other vt pseudos. 

The main objection is that this departs from what the spec defines as when to capture things, and also that this doesn't work for non-scope-roots (ie in any other situation `view-transition-group: contain` with `view-transition-name: none` would have no effect)

2. Add `view-transition-name: root !important` and `view-transition-group: contain` in the UA stylesheet. This forces capture of the scope and thus `view-transition-group` applies naturally.

The main objection here is that this mandates self scope participation and makes the non-captured content in the scope not interactive (modulo general pointer event improvements in another issue)

Please let me know if I missed another leading option

---

My personal opinions on the objections are below:
1. I think the scope is already a sufficiently special element -- you have to call startVT on it -- that we can afford _some_ magic in that we have to capture geometry of the thing you call startVT on, so I think that's a good option

2. Scoped VT allows the author to select how much or how little of the content they want transitioning, which is a vast improvement over the current state. The inability to fine tune the smaller capture to also allow interactivity within it seems inconsequential in practice. We also have some plans to improve pointer event forwarding which may further improve this. So I think this is also a good option

To clarify, I don't mind either one of these.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by vmpstr
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12324#issuecomment-3638147116 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2025 17:19:15 UTC