- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2026 16:38:17 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-view-transitions-2] [scoped] Force tag containment for active transitions`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: running view-transition is effectively vt-scope:all during the transition` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <TabAtkins> vmpstr: this is meaningful mostly for scoped vt<br> <TabAtkins> vmpstr: we have a prop vt-scope that can hide VT names from being discovered in its subtree<br> <TabAtkins> vmpstr: useful for scoped vt bc we want multiple widgets with the same names that don't conflict<br> <TabAtkins> vmpstr: what we'd like to have, mostly for sanity, is to enforce that an element that is a scope, a target of startViewTransition(), gets vt-scope:all applied for the duration of the transition<br> <TabAtkins> vmpstr: I'd like it to be !important, or magic to force. but theoretically we could apply it normally and let the dev unset<br> <TabAtkins> astearns: can you elaborate on why not?<br> <TabAtkins> vmpstr: when an element is transitioning, its paint is controlled... if an outer transition starts and can discover the same name, it brings up weird questions<br> <emilio> q+<br> <astearns> ack TabAtkins<br> <TabAtkins> vmpstr: can't forward the paint to two things. potentially could take pixels...<br> <TabAtkins> vmpstr: it just creates visual confusion for no particular benefit<br> <TabAtkins> vmpstr: not claiming there are zero use-cases, just don';t know of any that are compelling<br> <astearns> ack emilio<br> <TabAtkins> emilio: another way to do is, when collecting elements for VT, you just don't enter the subtree of elements with an active vt<br> <TabAtkins> emilio: then you don't have to change the value of vt-scope<br> <TabAtkins> emilio: I agree the behavior is what we want<br> <TabAtkins> +1 to Emilio, was gonna suggest that<br> <TabAtkins> emilio: so I think we can just add a check during name collection<br> <TabAtkins> vmpstr: that's what I meant by "magic". no need to accutally change the value, so long as the effect is that the subtree is skipped<br> <TabAtkins> astearns: i'm fine as well<br> <TabAtkins> astearns: I think the only reason to put something in the UA stylesheet is to provide a signal to the author of why things are happening the way they are. don't think that's relevant in this cas<br> <TabAtkins> emilio: also any change in UA stylesheet could be infinitely delayed by a transition<br> <TabAtkins> emilio: so using the UA styleshet doesn't actually give us the control we need here anyway<br> <TabAtkins> vmpstr: proposed resolution, running view-transition is effectively vt-scope:all during the transition<br> <TabAtkins> astearns: objections?<br> <TabAtkins> RESOLVED: running view-transition is effectively vt-scope:all during the transition<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/13637#issuecomment-4179081419 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2026 16:38:17 UTC