Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] CSS view transition auto name generation (Issue #1001)

jyasskin left a comment (w3ctag/design-reviews#1001)

The TAG has previously been concerned about CSS using `auto` for meanings that aren't going to be obvious to authors. See https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1011#issuecomment-2460300421. This may be another case where the CSSWG forgot to bikeshed the name before approving it. Looking at the history:

* 2024 Sept 11: [CSSWG resolved to provide a keyword that falls back between `id` and element identity.](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8320#issuecomment-2344208387) The resolution does _not_ pick "auto" as that name. 
* 2024 Oct 1: @noamr's https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/10922 merged the `auto` name into the view-transitions draft. I couldn't find any resolution saying that was the right name.
* 2024 Oct 31: @jakearchibald [raised the concerns that `auto` isn't the right name for this concept, and that the concept might not be a good idea at all.](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10995#issuecomment-2449805338)
* 2024 Dec 9: [Safari announced they've shipped the `auto` name](https://webkit.org/blog/16301/webkit-features-in-safari-18-2/#view-transitions). @fantasai [explained](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10995#issuecomment-2549723766) that Safari implemented the name between when it was merged into the spec and when Jake objected, and an Oct 31 objection was too late to affect a Dec 9 release.

Obviously we can't force Safari to do anything in particular, but we could encourage the other browsers to hold off on defining `auto` and either let authors write out `attr(id type(<custom-ident>), match-element)` or pick a clearer name for that behavior.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1001#issuecomment-2770499217
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1001/2770499217@github.com>