Khushal Sagar

Thanks for filing the issue for this RFP. The filled in template is below. * WebKittens who can provide input: @smfr. They had input in the CSSWG discussion captured on...

@tabatkins do you have a preference for a function/prefix vs implicit scoping based on which stylesheet the declaration is in? With the prefix/function every keyframe declaration in a UA stylesheet...

Let me try to clarify the details for the explicit proposal: * Each keyframe declaration in the UA stylesheet will have a CSS function to scope it: ```css @keyframes ua(fade-in)...

Heads up, we'll have a session on this feature at TPAC on Wednesday. I'll post the exact time next week. Looking forward to see folks interested there!

The breakout session is on September 14 at 3 PST. Details are [here](https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/68a3ec0e-715b-4415-ac23-0d41fa569ea8) including a link to join virtually.

> the ::view-image-group(name) provides the blending isolation between the images, so nested :views don't get impacted by the blending. Clarifying this a bit more. Currently our DOM structure looks like...

> I don't quite like the confusion over whether groups or sets are outermost. Would `::swap-view-images` or `::view-swap-images` make that clearer? Since the only nodes underneath it would be the...

> We cold drop -root, and just have ::view-transition without parens be the root That makes things ambiguous. Especially because we do want the function syntax to allow selecting all...

> The main concern I have is how this all plays with the nested transitions extension. The nested transition extension shouldn't be an issue with this. We have 2 selector...

Reading the notes from the discussion, I think `view-transition-effect-group` would address concerns with the other options. It's not using the word image which creates confusion about the elements underneath being...