- From: Noam Rosenthal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 09:07:31 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> I had a chat with [@bramus](https://github.com/bramus) about this this morning. > > Having the `::view-transition-nested-groups` be sized to the content box does seem painful for devs, where they'd have to recreate a bunch of sizing stuff. > > The idea [@bramus](https://github.com/bramus) attributed to [@flackr](https://github.com/flackr) seemed great to me, where the `::view-transition-nested-groups` where the border size of the parent is captured, and assigned as a transparent border to the `::view-transition-nested-groups`. I know there were complexities around the layered capture, but do we hit them in this simple case? What we've learned from layered capture is that there is no clear boundary of what the "simple" case is. Wherever we draw the line is where the simple case is going to be, and people will eventually try to do something that's beyond that boundary and find that the solution doesn't suit them. We can decide to live with that or aim for something more comprehensive. In this case, for example, mismatches around `overflow-clip-margin`, CSS containment, concave `corner-shape` and scrollbars come to mind - the author would have to copy 10-20 CSS properties to make these cases appear correct. It might become frustrating in organizations where the general styling/theming of elements is developed separately from the animation/transitions. -- GitHub Notification of comment by noamr Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/11926#issuecomment-2875650102 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2025 09:07:32 UTC