Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-logical] Should the `inset` shorthand allow quirks in their lengths like the individual properties do? (#3525)

The CSS Working Group just discussed ``Should the `inset` shorthand allow quirks in their lengths like the individual properties do?``, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Do not allow quirks in 'inset' shorthand`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: Should the `inset` shorthand allow quirks in their lengths like the individual properties do?<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3525<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Top left bottom and right prop in quirks mode allow px without px unit. 100=100px. DO we have same quirk for logical longhands? Related is what about inset shorthand?<br>
&lt;fantasai> (inset shorthand shorthands the physical properties, top/left/bottom/right)<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: I don't see a reason to allow quirks in new properties. Need to not rely on top because that imports quirks<br>
&lt;bradk> No quirks<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: We can add a note saying this notation doesn't import quirks<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: I'm agreeing shorthand shouldn't have quirks and deal with that in spec definition as well as add test cases<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Other opinions?<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Obj to not allowing quirks in 'inset' shorthand?<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: Do not allow quirks in 'inset' shorthand<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3525#issuecomment-456902648 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2019 17:56:37 UTC