W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2014

Re: [css-snappoints] 11/6 Snap points draft update

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 13:36:19 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLZOtf=6m_LHPBU+TJpJMBE6DjHugDmTb4aQHqsRtae4VQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matt Rakow <marakow@microsoft.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

I think it's important to soon resolve the issue about what to do for
mandatory snapping when there's no reachable snappoint. I propose that if
there are no reachable snappoints at all, no snapping occurs. Otherwise we
scroll as far as we can to minimize the distance between the scroll
position and the nearest snappoint.

Also, I'm concerned about this requirement:

> If the content changes such that the visual viewport would no longer rest
> on a snap point (e.g. content is added, moved, deleted, resized), the
> scroll offset must be modified to maintain this guarantee.
This is not easy to implement. It also raises the issue of how this
interacts with JS setting the scroll position; I really have no idea what
we should do if there's mandatory snapping and JS sets scrollTop to an
offset  that's not a snappoint. Can you clarify that?

oIo otoeololo oyooouo otohoaoto oaonoyooonoeo owohooo oioso oaonogoroyo
owoiotoho oao oboroootohoeoro oooro osoiosotoeoro owoiololo oboeo
osouobojoeocoto otooo ojouodogomoeonoto.o oAogoaoiono,o oaonoyooonoeo
osoaoyoso otooo oao oboroootohoeoro oooro osoiosotoeoro,o o‘oRoaocoao,o’o
oaonosowoeoroaoboloeo otooo otohoeo ocooouoroto.o oAonodo oaonoyooonoeo
osoaoyoso,o o‘oYooouo ofooooolo!o’o owoiololo oboeo oiono odoaonogoeoro
otohoeo ofoioroeo ooofo ohoeololo.
Received on Friday, 7 November 2014 00:36:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:26 UTC