6 ms·
Yes but you still use <a> tag for view transitions native to the browser. That’s the beauty.
by gvkhna 3y ago
Yes but you still use <a> tag for view transitions native to the browser. That’s the beauty.
- CharlesW 3y agoThat’s great, but I’ve been able to do that with CSS for years.
- gvkhna 3y agoThat’s amazing, but others haven’t so it’s nice when a framework makes things more accessible for the rest of us!
- cornfutes 3y agoWhat’s not accessible about CSS? This is already a low bar to pass. I remember adding CSS3 transitions a decade ago at my first internship. It feels like there is a lot of brigading and shilling of Astro throughout this thread, as typical with web frontend frameworks.
- gvkhna 3y agoIt’s just the time savings, any competent engineer can implement better transitions, it’s just not very high priority these days. A simple one liner built-in is very convenient.
- cornfutes 3y ago> A simple one liner built-in is very convenient. Then why do you need bloated web UI that's not performant as React, Vue, Angular, Svelte? You can also just add 1 line of css classes to HTML elements to have transitions if you use a library like Animate.css.
- csjh 3y agoIsn't that just how the view transitions API works?
- gvkhna 3y agoYes but this in contrast specifically to <Link to=