Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-view-transitions-2] [scoped] Can a self-participating scope be an outer-transition participant? (#12322)

It would be possible in theory for us to specify that a non-self-participating scope can participate in an outer transition, and that this is specified using the `view-transition-name` property without adding any new syntax.

It's true that if we did this, your codepen would not need the "workaround" of using an ancestor of the inner scope as the outer participant.

I am not absolutely opposed to this proposal but I would like to call out a couple of weird things about it:

1. Your expectation is that when an inner scope is outer-participating, the capture for that participation *includes* the inner scope's transition pseudo tree. Whereas when a scope is self-participating, the capture for that participation *does not include* the scope's transition pseudo tree. So even though we aren't introducing a new property like `outer-view-transition-name`, but we are still introducing two different kinds of capturing logic, for self-participation vs. outer-participation.
2. Your idea seems to be that the web author should dynamically modify the `view-transition-name` property on the inner scope, since it has to be `none` at the time the inner transition starts, and have some other value at the time the outer transition starts. That seems potentially racy, and wouldn't allow both transitions to start at the time time, for example.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by skobes-chromium
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12322#issuecomment-3937105338 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Friday, 20 February 2026 20:52:21 UTC