[css-transitions-2] Should @starting-style add a teensy bit of specifity?

[tabatkins]

See https://youtu.be/DNXEORSk4GU?si=FaHmoCzBpQPF9eeS&t=1161 for context. In this video, the dev explains that they used to put @starting-style at the top of their rule, which felt more natural, but now that we've changed how Nesting works, that no longer works - the plain declarations are no longer shifted above the nested rules, so the @starting-style styles lose due to order-of-appearance. Instead, you have to put @starting-style below your other declarations.

This feels like a frustrating footgun. Would it make sense to have @starting-style introduce a new, lowest bit of specificity, so it'll win over plain declarations in the same parent rule regardless of the order it appears in?

[benface]

I'd rather not. It would be confusing. Why would @starting-style affect the specificity but other at-rules like @media wouldn't?

[bramus]

I’m with @benface here. It would feel inconstent when compared to other at-rules.

I believe that the authors who are struggling with this right now are the ones that have used it before – which not that many have.

If they hadn’t seen/learned the old behavior, I think the current behavior caused by CSSNestedDeclarations is what they would have expected to happen in the first place (which is also something Kevin mentions in his video: it’s regular cascade now).