W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > July 2020

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-inline-3] vertical-align syntax / canonical ordering (#5235)

From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 22:43:49 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-665331902-1595976228-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-inline-3] vertical-align syntax / canonical ordering`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Canonical is first, alphabetic, shift`
* `RESOLVED: We want to allow reordering of values for vertical-align`
* `RESOLVED: In order to keep vertical-align and align similar we want to allow reordering of values for align property`
* `RESOLVED: auto value of baseline-source not allowed in vertical-align shorthand`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: [css-inline-3] vertical-align syntax / canonical ordering<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5235<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Minor questions. We split vert align to 2 longhands b/c SVG had the two longhands and CSS had shorthand<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Questions. Added baseline-srource long hand where it's first or last. What's best canonical ordering of values?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I put baseline-source than baseline-alignment then baseline-shift. So first, alpha, 0.5em<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: If that seems fine we can close on that<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Thoughts?<br>
&lt;fantasai> vertical-align: first alphabetic 0.4em<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Sounds like your proposal makes sense<br>
&lt;dael> heycam: Reads nicely in that order. Don't remember specific needs for these properties.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Second question was normally we allow reorder of keywords and values as long as can parse w/o ambig. CSS align restricts position of first and last with baseline keyword.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Do we want to be consistent with css align or do we want to allow reorder b/c in this context can parse either way<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I guess 3rd is make it reorderable in alignment<br>
&lt;fantasai> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-align-3/#baseline-values<br>
&lt;dael> heycam: In other properties is that also 2 sep properties or is it within the one?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Current alignment prop is just one with no long hand. Current is first | last ? base-align<br>
&lt;fantasai> css-align - &lt;baseline-position> = [ first | last ]? baseline<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Do we match, allow arbitrary order in these, or loosen alignment to allow reorder<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Can we do that?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I think so. WOuld make invalid things valid. I don't think lots of people use first | last esp. since doesn't work in Chrome<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Not sure I would jump to that conclusion so quickly. DOesn't sound benign<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: Change is to allow keyword to be in either order. Not breaking anything but something that didn't work might work<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Yes<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: Fairly new prop so I don't think big web compat risk<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Data or feelings?<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: Feelings. And we warn people about zombie css and do not guar that something with no effect before is always no effect<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: And first | last don't work in chrome so no reason to try and use it there<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: We have cononical ordering. Do we allow value reordering and do we expand to align. That's the progression. Let's decide vertical-align first.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Preference is lean toward consistent.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: If align wasn't there is there a reason to disallow reordering<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: No<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: So for vertical-align want to allow reordering<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: We can resolve on this and then figure out if we can extend to align. Sounds like we feel fine without data but this is new and ideally doesn't break<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: With that have 2 resolutions<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Anyone think we should go the other way? Keep them strict w/o re-ordering?<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: 2 resolutions.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: The canonical order, vertical-align: first alphabetic 0.4em...record that?<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Okay. Canonical is first, alphabetic, shift<br>
&lt;dael> florian: As spec currently?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Yeah<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Objections?<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: Canonical is first, alphabetic, shift<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: We want to allow reordering of values for vertical-align<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Objections?<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: We want to allow reordering of values for vertical-align<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Third: In order to keep vertical-align and align similar we want to allow reordering of values for align property<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Objections?<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: In order to keep vertical-align and align similar we want to allow reordering of values for align property<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: One more on this. Normally when have longhand/shorthand we allow all values of longhand to be part of shorthand<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Initial value of baseline-source is auto. Do we want that intial value to be spec in vertical-align shorthand. It is initial value so no need to be specifiable. If it is explicitly and we add auto to alignment-baseline that's not parsable easily<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Might be a reason to disallow. Don't lose capability and opens possibility to open and auto value<br>
&lt;dael> florian: So when you mean auto you omit the value<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Yes<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I don't think it's a big deal. I have a slight preference to omit in case it's useful in future since auto is general keyword<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Easier to add than remove so let's do what you suggest and we can add it back if we change our mind<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Fair. Other reasons to keep it by anyone?<br>
&lt;dbaron> that sounds good to me<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Objections?<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: auto value of baseline-source not allowed in vertical-align shorthand<br>

GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5235#issuecomment-665331902 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2020 22:43:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:42:12 UTC