You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It should probably be a recommended best practice for developers to set contain: view-transition on all elements that will be scopes.
If the developer does not set contain: view-transition on a scope, the browser could do it automatically during the transition. This would not prevent inner tags from being picked up by an outer transition when the inner transition is not running.
If scopes are self-participating by default (#12319), then they should probably also be contain: view-transition by default, so that an outer transition does not try to use an inner transition's scope as a participant in the outer transition.
This issue tracks an open question about the behavior of Scoped View Transitions. Further context appears in the document Self-Participating Scopes.
Q: Should the scope have contain:v-t by default?
A goal of scoped view transitions is to enable composability: inner and outer components can both use transitions without being aware of each other.
But this means we should have a way to stop the outer transition from seeing the tags that "belong" to the inner transition.
Chromium has prototyped
contain: view-transition
for this:It should probably be a recommended best practice for developers to set
contain: view-transition
on all elements that will be scopes.If the developer does not set
contain: view-transition
on a scope, the browser could do it automatically during the transition. This would not prevent inner tags from being picked up by an outer transition when the inner transition is not running.If scopes are self-participating by default (#12319), then they should probably also be
contain: view-transition
by default, so that an outer transition does not try to use an inner transition's scope as a participant in the outer transition.cc @noamr @vmpstr @flackr @bramus @jakearchibald
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: