Re: [csswg-drafts] Scroll anchoring opt out / exclusion API (overflow-anchor)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `TAG review of scroll anchoring`, and agreed to the following resolutions:

* `RESOLVED: Graduate scroll-anchoring from WICG to CSSWG`
* `RESOLVED: Request to graduate from WICG to CSSWG`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;surma> Topic: TAG review of scroll anchoring<br>
&lt;rbyers> https://github.com/WICG/ScrollAnchoring/blob/master/README.md<br>
&lt;rbyers> github issue: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/676<br>
&lt;rbyers> Video: https://blog.google/products/chrome/taking-aim-annoying-page-jumps-chrome/<br>
&lt;fantasai> rbyers: gave a presentation on i t at TPAC<br>
&lt;fantasai> rbyers: wanted it to be opt-out, not opt-in<br>
&lt;surma> rbyers: This is a feature to avoid jumping while the page is loading. We talked about it at TPAC. We didn’t want it to be opt-in, so we needed to make sure the heuristics are good. We have written all the details in the spec. Shipped in Chrome 55. We see it used on 10% of pages views on Android. The pages that use it hit the heuristics 5 times poer page<br>
&lt;surma> load<br>
&lt;surma> rbyers: We wanted to check if theres other interest. We can still make changes.<br>
&lt;surma> [general signals of interest]<br>
&lt;surma> rbyers: People didn’t notice they had this problem. Now that Chrome corrects it, it might get worse in other browsers.<br>
&lt;surma> rbyers: Should we warn on console about hitting the heuristics?<br>
&lt;surma> rbyers: We are careful about spamming warnings<br>
&lt;surma> dbaron: I‘d want this to work when I resize a window, too. That shouldn‘t issue a warning.<br>
&lt;surma> [rbyers checks if it is tie to resizing too]<br>
&lt;surma> Rossen: Let say you have implemented snap points. How much can be built on top of this<br>
&lt;surma> TabAtkins: nothing<br>
&lt;surma> rbyers: This lets you customize what is considered an anchor. Snap points set the anchors.<br>
&lt;surma> Florian: Is this writing-mode aware?<br>
&lt;surma> rbyers: It should be<br>
&lt;surma> Florian: The interesting part is that the implementation is complex, but the api is small, so changes can be made in the future to the heuristic<br>
&lt;surma> fantasai: We should publish a FPWD through CSSWG(?)<br>
&lt;surma> TabAtkins: Since Google is a member of the group, any Googler can continue work on the draft, even if the person themselves is not a member of the group. Correct, ChrisL ?<br>
&lt;surma> ChrisL: I think so, yes<br>
&lt;surma> ChrisL: If they are not a member, tho,  what if they start doing whatever they want<br>
&lt;surma> astearns: we take them off as an editor<br>
&lt;surma> fantasai: Its better for the editor to be a member of the group for access to all the tools etc<br>
&lt;surma> rbyers: we’ll ask him to join<br>
&lt;fantasai> fantasai: No expectation of him showing up to meetings etc.<br>
&lt;surma> Rossen: this is in WICG, no? What is the migration process?<br>
&lt;surma> Florian: We just did it<br>
&lt;surma> Rossen: not sure that is the case<br>
&lt;surma> astearns: We dont have a clear handoff<br>
&lt;surma> Florian: We take the spec, put it in our repo<br>
&lt;surma> rbyers: We’ll ask cwilso how to migrate<br>
&lt;surma> Rossen: We’d like to know as well for future WICG migrations. There used to be a high bar, I don’t want to just ignore/circumvent that<br>
&lt;surma> TabAtkins: Worst case I’ll be co-editor<br>
&lt;surma> astearns: It could be nice to have the editor on calls to have their expertise<br>
&lt;surma> RESOLVED: Graduate scroll-anchoring from WICG to CSSWG<br>
&lt;surma> RESOLVED: Request to graduate from WICG to CSSWG<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/676#issuecomment-296109835 using your GitHub account

Received on Friday, 21 April 2017 07:37:18 UTC