[scroll-animations] The selector() function vs. similar cases

[andruud]

Not necessarily a spec issue, I'm just wondering why the source descriptor currently accepts selector(<id-selector>), rather than just <id-selector>.

I'm not implying that it doesn't make sense or that it's somehow very bad, I just want to ensure that we're as consistent across specs as we can be. In particular, nav-up (etc) accepts an <id> directly. (Are there other similar cases)?

[andruud]

cc @majido

[SebastianZ]

There is also the element() function of CSS Images 4 that takes an ID selector.

I think always requiring a selector() function is more future proof, as it explicitly marks it and allows the it to be extended to take other selectors. Allowing the selector to be placed directly may cause conflicts with keywords and other syntax definitions.
And of course it is more consistent to always use the same way to specify selectors.

So I vote for using selector() in nav-up and Co. and replacing element() by selector().

Sebastian

[andruud]

Ah, thanks for pointing out element() @SebastianZ. Agree that direct selector isn't a good pattern. E.g. it's ambiguous if you have <color> | <id> and parse #facade against that grammar.

[majido]

FWIW, this was something the I brought about the syntax in F2F discussion when it was first proposed (See #4338). And the resolution was to use selector() instead of element() for the exact reasons @SebastianZ pointed out.

Closing since there is no other action AFAICT.

[SebastianZ]

Closing since there is no other action AFAICT.

What is still needed is to update CSS UI 4 and CSS Images 4 to also use selector().

Sebastian

[SebastianZ]

@majido Could you please reopen this issue, so it's not forgotten that CSS UI 4 and CSS Images 4 still need to be changed accordingly? Thank you!

Sebastian

[majido]

I can re-open this issue and tag the other spec but I worry that it may be confusing as the initial discussion is scroll-linked animations. Seems a better approach is to create a new issue and link back to this one for historical context. wdyt?

[SebastianZ]

Seems a better approach is to create a new issue and link back to this one for historical context. wdyt?

It took me a few months 😅 but I finally created #5811 to discuss this separately.

Sebastian