Consider removing tests belonging to css-view-transitions-2

[BorisChiou]

Test List

1. Parsing using the new syntax defined in css-view-transitions-2, e.g. view-transition-class and <pt-name-and-class-selector> parsing/view-transition-class-valid.html parsing/view-transition-class-computed.html parsing/view-transition-class-invalid.html parsing/pseudo-elements-valid-with-classes.html parsing/pseudo-elements-invalid-with-classes.html
2. active-view-transition pseudo class (spec) active-view-transition-on-non-root.html active-view-transition-pseudo-class-match.html active-view-transition-type-on-non-root.html
3. view-transition-name: auto(spec) auto-name-from-id-shadow.html auto-name-from-id.html auto-name-get-animations.html auto-name.html
4. view-transition-class (spec) match-element-name.html pseudo-with-classes-entry.html pseudo-with-classes-exit.html pseudo-with-classes-match-ident.html pseudo-with-classes-match-multiple-wildcard.html pseudo-with-classes-match-multiple.html pseudo-with-classes-match-wildcard-no-star.html pseudo-with-classes-match-wildcard.html pseudo-with-classes-mismatch-ident.html pseudo-with-classes-mismatch-partial.html pseudo-with-classes-mismatch-wildcard.html pseudo-with-classes-multiple-vt-classes.html pseudo-with-classes-new-with-class-old-without.html pseudo-with-classes-old-with-class-new-without.html pseudo-with-classes-view-transition-group.html pseudo-with-classes-view-transition-image-pair.html shadow-part-with-class-inside-shadow-important.html shadow-part-with-class-inside-shadow.html shadow-part-with-class.html shadow-part-with-name-nested.html shadow-part-with-name-overridden-by-important.html shadow-part-with-name.html

Rationale

The interop 2025 view transitions focus area is only for CSS View Transitions Module Level 1, so we definitely have to remove the tests using syntax defined in CSS View Transitions Module Level 2.

[nt1m]

View transition classes were explicitly agreed on for Interop 2025.

:active-view-transition should be pretty simple to implement (less than a day of work).

Potentially the one I'd consider dropping is active-view-transition-type-on-non-root.html, since it's about VT types which is more intrinsically linked to cross-document VT (which was explicitly dropped).

view-transition-name: auto/match-element are also relatively simple to implement. These are natural extensions to classes. I could really go either way for this feature. I'd love to get a chance to fix the issues with auto in WebKit at some point.

cc @chrishtr @vmpstr @noamr

[noamr]

View transition classes were explicitly agreed on for Interop 2025.

:active-view-transition should be pretty simple to implement (less than a day of work).

Potentially the one I'd consider dropping is active-view-transition-type-on-non-root.html, since it's about VT types which is more intrinsically linked to cross-document VT (which was explicitly dropped).

I don't think VT types are intrinsically linked to cross-document VT in any way. Like classes, they are also quite simple.

[nt1m]

View transition classes were explicitly agreed on for Interop 2025. :active-view-transition should be pretty simple to implement (less than a day of work). Potentially the one I'd consider dropping is active-view-transition-type-on-non-root.html, since it's about VT types which is more intrinsically linked to cross-document VT (which was explicitly dropped).

I don't think VT types are intrinsically linked to cross-document VT in any way. Like classes, they are also quite simple.

I recall the Interop group explicitly dropping types from Interop 2025, so I'd be personally OK with removing the tests.

I think the only feature that wasn't explicitly discussed was auto/match-element

[noamr]

I recall the Interop group explicitly dropping types from Interop 2025, so I'd be personally OK with removing the tests.

Fine with me!

[BorisChiou]

Thanks for these information. So view-transition-class is in interop-2025 definitely. And active-view-transition looks like quite simple so it's fine to me to keep it. active-view-transition-type() should be dropped per the group discussion.

@emilio would you like to keep view-transition-name: auto/match-element? I just checked the spec, and looks like it shouldn't take too much time.

[BorisChiou]

OK, Thanks for all.

So let's just remove the tests which use view transition types because the Interop group explicitly dropped it from Interop-2025 (i.e. the usage ofactive-view-transition-type(), in active-view-transition-type-on-non-root.html.

For others, because they are relative simple and agreed in the Interop group already, so we keep them.

In conclusion: Just consider to remove active-view-transition-type-on-non-root.html, which uses view transition types. (Note: looks like we don't include other tests using view transition types, so I guess this is just a missing one)

[jgraham]

https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt-metadata/pull/7498 should have fixed this