Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-scroll-snap-1] Improve or clarify nested snap behaviors (#9187)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-scroll-snap-1] Improve or clarify nested snap behaviors`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Specify option 7 as normative behavior`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> flackr: Previously discussed this. Use case is when you have nested snap points want to respect inner ones as descrete stops that are separate.<br>
&lt;dael> flackr: Previously suggest avoiding inner, but that mad tiny gaps. fantasai had alternate that joined inner with outer that follows. Had some concerns about asymmetrical<br>
&lt;dael> flackr: Comprimise is when the gap between the inner snap areas is larger than viewport it's a discrete area you can snap to. When it's smaller it joins with previous inner snap area<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> I haven't been able to experiment with this myself, but Adam has and likes flackr's suggestion, and it does sound pretty reasonable.<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> So +1<br>
&lt;dael> flackr: Already have a condition for length between snap areas. And I think it satisfies both use cases. Made a demo page with all the various proposals. Adam tried it out and voted his support<br>
&lt;dael> flackr: Hoping we can go with this.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Compare to scrollport or snapport?<br>
&lt;dael> flackr: Snapport<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Sounds like a good direction. Not sure how final we'll be until there's a prototype, but happy to go in this direction. Wondering if we want to spec it out now or spec as you could do this but it's technically undefined<br>
&lt;dael> flackr: I'm in favor of spec out and pushing for this to be the direction. We already have browser differences. It feels like spec will bring more attention<br>
&lt;astearns> +1 to specifying behavior<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Yeah, I think we put algo in spec. Just if we should require or if it's an example<br>
&lt;dael> florian: This will be fiddly, so we shouldld w write it with intent that it's normative so we get same behavior<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Okay<br>
&lt;dael> flackr: +1<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: I didn't read all the options<br>
&lt;dael> flackr: I did make prototype so we can play with it<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Is it option 7 or option 7 plus other things?<br>
&lt;dael> flackr: Just option 7<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I wouldn't be surprised if we have to revisit once people play with it, but until then this is areasonable to start<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Prop: Specify option 7 as normative behavior<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Obj?<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: Specify option 7 as normative behavior<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Thanks flackr for doing the demo and going through options<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9187#issuecomment-1843938807 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Thursday, 7 December 2023 00:32:26 UTC