Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-text] text-align: match-parent on the root element with direction: rtl doesn't match browsers (#6542)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `text-align: match-parent`.

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;TabAtkins> Topic: text-align: match-parent<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> florian: match-parent on text-align does as the name implies, matches the parent's alignment<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> florian: Different form just inheriting, as the meanign of start and end might have switched if the direction switches. With match-parent it doesn't flip, it def matches the parent<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> florian: So the question is what to do on the root. The spec has an answer that I think makes sense, but doesn't have interop.<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> florian: But not sure I'm aware of significant real problems triggered by this, so if we have a sensible behavior in the spec that doesn't cause real issues I think it's okay to leave it as-is and consider non-compliance a bug, but zcorpan didn't see it that way<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: zcorpan wanted us to either change the spec to match impls, or get a commitment from browser engines that they want to fix this bug<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: My personal take is that this is a very low-prio fix, but it should be considered a bug so when someone is fixing that area of the code they could fix it too.<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: Don't think we should require anyone to prioritize fixing it. Super low prio, possibly lowest prio I've ever seen. But don't think we should change the spec, I think the spec is more correct.<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> astearns: Assume there's not bugs filed on this?<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> florian: Not sure.<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> astearns: So part of zcorpan's request is to get bugs filed. I agree with him.<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: I can take an action to make sure bugs are filed.<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> astearns: And once bugs are filed, we'll see if we can get evals from impls on the bugs themselves.<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> astearns: But like fantasai said, don't think a timely fix is strictly required for this.<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: Well is it okay to close the bug, with the understanding that we have bugs filed and impls plan to fix it at some point?<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> astearns: Right, let's file the bugs and get to the next part<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> emilio: Gecko behavior here is intentional. I'd need to investigate why it's a special case, I didn't write the code.<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> florian: That's relevant, if browsers have specific reasons for differeing from the spec it would be good to report so we can see if the spec should reflect that. But if it's just accidental we should know that too, so we can be confident of keeping the current spec.<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> astearns: So next step is writing bugs.<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6542#issuecomment-1137555074 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2022 16:57:25 UTC