- From: fantasai via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 22:36:15 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Upon further reflection, I'd like to revert the resolution in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9124#issuecomment-1663098232 : I don't think `anchor-center` should have any special behavior different from any other alignment value here. However - I agree that making `auto` compute to zero in a single-`auto` axis with non-`normal` alignment makes sense; there's nothing particularly useful going on otherwise. - In a double-`auto` axis, if the abspos has an associated anchor, assigning an explicit anchor should obliterate the static position association, regardless of alignment value, and instead position the abspos relative to the anchor. (In the July 2023 Anchor Positioning draft model, this would compute its `auto` insets to some kind of `anchor()` value; in the July 2023 Anchor Exploration presentation model, this would compute its `auto` insets to zero.) Proposed resolutions for the above would be: - PROPOSED: If only one `inset` in an axis is `auto`, and self-alignment in that axis is not `normal`, the `auto` inset computes to zero. - PROPOSED: Revert previous resolution, do not define special `inset` behavior for `anchor-center` alone. - PROPOSED: If both `inset` values in an axis are `auto`, and the abspos is associated with an anchor box, its automatic position is relative to its anchor box, not its static position. (I'll tackle the generic (non-anchored) double-`auto` case in a separate comment.) -- GitHub Notification of comment by fantasai Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9124#issuecomment-1678174879 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 14 August 2023 22:36:17 UTC