W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2013

[css-snappoints] Various issues

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 22:39:31 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLYi0CLUKsLSahqH9Tw3-YxdqpPecS9Es-coGJ23Eiuf2g@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
[Many of these issues are derived from

Can we change the name of the spec to css-scrollsnap? We don't snap to
points, but to edges.

For that reason, I think scroll-snap-points-x/y should be renamed to

scroll-snap-type seems unnecessarily verbose. I suggest we just use

I think independent control over vertical and horizontal snapping will be
very useful. (E.g, vertical scrolling through a list of items, some of
which may overflow horizontally.) I propose making scroll-snap a shorthand
for scroll-snap-x and scroll-snap-y.

What should happen when we're currently snapped to an edge and that edge
moves? (E.g. due to dynamic changes to the scroll-snap-positions-x/y
properties, or due to a layout change moving an edge induced by an element
with scroll-snap-edge?) In proximity mode I guess it's OK to just do
nothing. But in mandatory mode, I think we should re-snap to the nearest
snapping edge, or something like that.

I have a proposal for a scroll-snap-edge property that adds edges of an
element's margin-box or border-box to the list of allowable snapping
positions. I think in most cases this is simpler and more robust than
scroll-snap-positions-x/y. I would like this, or some version of it, to be
incorporated into the spec. The details are here:

For scroll-snap-edge to be useful, we need scroll-snap-positions-x/y to
support a "none" value, which should be the initial value.

If we do that, then we need to specify what happens when there is mandatory
snapping but no snapping positions. In my linked proposal, I have suggested
we snap to 0 in that specific case. (As I noted in an earlier email, there
are use-cases that require the set of allowed snapping positions to exclude

Jtehsauts  tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy  Mdaon  yhoaus  eanuttehrotraiitny  eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o  Whhei csha iids  teoa
stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d  'mYaonu,r  "sGients  uapr,e  tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
'm aotr  atnod  sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t"  uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n?  gBoutt  uIp
waanndt  wyeonut  thoo mken.o w
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2013 09:39:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:17 UTC