Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-inline] Draft line-box-contain proposal (#3199)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `Draft line-box-contain proposal`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Publish css-inline`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;heycam> Topic: Draft line-box-contain proposal<br>
&lt;heycam> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3199<br>
&lt;heycam> fantasai: this is the main one we've discussed a bunch about drafting alternate models for line layout<br>
&lt;heycam> ... some of the ideas are captured in the draft<br>
&lt;heycam> ... do we want to publish with them in the draft?<br>
&lt;heycam> ... it's not in any way final, question is just whether we want a placeholder in there to solicit discussion on the ideas<br>
&lt;heycam> florian: agree it's not final, but it's worth leaving in to get extra review<br>
&lt;heycam> dbaron: I think it's mostly reasonable, though there's a sentence in there I don't understand<br>
&lt;heycam> ... "half-leading is inserted inside the content box edges rather than overlapping the pbm areas"<br>
&lt;heycam> fantasai: I can remove that sentence<br>
&lt;heycam> ... if you wanted a line height that's less than 1, somehow we have to reduce the size of the box that we're considering for the height of the line<br>
&lt;heycam> ... otherwise it would increase the height of the line box<br>
&lt;heycam> ... there's needs to be a reduction at least on the margin<br>
&lt;heycam> ... somewhere we need to reduce the size<br>
&lt;heycam> dbaron: I guess there's 2 questions. one is what you said makes it sound like you want line height to change where the pbm go<br>
&lt;heycam> ... when half leading would be negative<br>
&lt;heycam> fantasai: yes<br>
&lt;heycam> ... that's one option<br>
&lt;heycam> ... but we could also not do that. it's not critical, I can remove it from the draft for now, but we should discuss at some point<br>
&lt;heycam> ... other option is to reduce the margin box<br>
&lt;heycam> dbaron: I think it might be good to move into an issue<br>
&lt;heycam> ... might be good to remove that part, but otherwise I'm fine with publishing with this in<br>
&lt;heycam> Rossen_: any other reasons to hold back publishing?<br>
&lt;fantasai> baseline-source: auto | first | last<br>
&lt;heycam> fantasai: we also added a baseline-source property for #861<br>
&lt;heycam> ... the syntax wasn't resolved yet<br>
&lt;heycam> ... we also added a leading-trim proposal, which again is not anywhere near final, but it's tracking the discussion we've had in the past<br>
&lt;heycam> ... then I pulled in a bunch of CSS 2.1 with florian's help, so we have some line height calculations defined in this draft.  no changes, just imported text<br>
&lt;heycam> florian: just to clarify, the 2.1 changes we're talking abotu (actually 2.2) we resolved<br>
&lt;heycam> ... they've been reverted to clean up CSS 2<br>
&lt;heycam> ... the wording we had resolved on and applied to CSS 2 is not present anywhere if we don't publish it here<br>
&lt;heycam> ... so I'm strongly in favor of publishing it<br>
&lt;fantasai> Summary of the changes we didn't quite resolve on at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2020AprJun/0137.html<br>
&lt;heycam> Rossen_: any objections, to this and publishing inline?<br>
&lt;heycam> fantasai: issue needs to remain open<br>
&lt;heycam> ... the issue on adding a new model for line height calculations.  the issue isn't closed yet, despite publishing<br>
&lt;florian> s/reverted to clean up CSS 2/reverted along with every other edit to CSS 2 as part of a temporary clean up/<br>
&lt;fantasai> all changes at https://drafts.csswg.org/css-inline-3/#changes<br>
&lt;dbaron> In 3.5 "Leading Control" I'd change "the ascend and descent font metrics" to change "ascend" to "ascent"<br>
&lt;heycam> RESOLVED: Publish css-inline<br>
&lt;fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/862<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3199#issuecomment-638515526 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2020 23:36:33 UTC