- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 17:48:51 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> In cases with both physical and logical longhands, the shorthand seems to refer to the physical ones. Because all of those are legacy shorthands dating back before we started adding logical longhands. In the time since we started doing that, we've defaulted to logical, and in fact have generally done logical-**only**. > Changing overflow to refer to logical longhands is not backwards compatible, and I would avoid hacks to make it half physical half logical. The extra complexity for CSSOM doesn't seem worth it. In all current impls `overflow` only takes a single value; except for the shorthand-expansion-in-specified-style issue that Emilio brought up (thanks!), it's unobservable which pair of longhands it canonically expands to. We should think more about that one exposed spot. > For example we need to define how the shorthand serialization argument works in that case. If I did: [snip] Note that this isn't a backwards-compat question, as this is assuming use of the new logical longhands, nor it is even overflow-specific; this is just a general question about how shorthands with both physical and logical longhands should serialize. (I'm not sure if this question is answered in css-logical offhand, as I'm not an editor - @fantasai or @frivoal?) -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2988#issuecomment-413278754 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2018 17:48:52 UTC