- From: fantasai via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 17:55:13 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Fwiw, I disagree with Tab on this one. I don't think it's a problem for each axis to be positioned relative to a different grid. I agree with @dholbert's [concern](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7661#issuecomment-1561546264) that disabling the grid positioning properties for static positioning results in more of a change in position than may be expected or desired, and it's inconsistent with what the static position is supposed to represent. My position is that: - if the grid position in an axis is auto (initial value), then - for static positioning, we use the content box (like for flexbox) - for abspos positioning, we use the padding box (like for everything) - if the grid position in an axis is not auto, then - for static positioning, we reference the parent grid (if any) - for abspos positioning, we reference the containing block grid (if any) I don't think this is confusing, and it is strictly more powerful than ignoring the grid positioning properties in staticpos, which I'm sure authors will find interesting uses for. -- GitHub Notification of comment by fantasai Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7661#issuecomment-1568842537 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2023 17:55:15 UTC