[csswg-drafts] web all vasa us The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-anchor-position-1] Better reusability of anchor names`, and agreed to the following: (#11374)

Sheikhfarid1 has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts:

== web all vasa us The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-anchor-position-1] Better reusability of anchor names`, and agreed to the following: ==
              The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-anchor-position-1] Better reusability of anchor names`, and agreed to the following:

* ``RESOLVED: Add an `anchor-scope` property``

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;emeyer> TabAtkins: It was brought up that right now, per spec, anchor names are whole-document visible<br>
&lt;fantasai> proposal -> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9045#issuecomment-1698431258<br>
&lt;emeyer> …They don’t have to be unique, and there are rules to deal with non-unique, but they’re all document-global<br>
&lt;emeyer> …So it’s hard to make a component that has self-contained visibility<br>
&lt;emeyer> …We’d like to fix this; there are a number of ways to do this<br>
&lt;emeyer> …We think we’d like to have an anchor-scope property<br>
&lt;emeyer> …You’d designate a container that scopes internal names or all names<br>
&lt;emeyer> …You can make a component, use a well-chosen name, and abspos will find the correct nearby anchor without grabbing something else on the page<br>
&lt;emeyer> fantasai: This was one of the things outlined when looking through the proposal back in July, so I think it makes sense to follow timeline scope<br>
&lt;emeyer> astearns: Do we want to create timeline-scope, anchor-scope, whatever-else-scope, or can we create an ident-scope?<br>
&lt;bramus> +1 to what fantasai said<br>
&lt;emeyer> TabAtkins: No. It’s hard and namespaces clash<br>
&lt;bramus> there’s a separate issue for `timeline-scope`: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9158<br>
&lt;emeyer> …You could allow naming the thing you’re scoping, but then you end up with additive scope clashes<br>
&lt;emeyer> astearns: Works for me<br>
&lt;fantasai> +1<br>
&lt;emeyer> bramus: +1 to fantasai about keeping timeline-scope separate<br>
&lt;emeyer> astearns: Proposal is to add `anchor-scope`<br>
&lt;emeyer> TabAtkins: Yes, which works like `tineline-scope`<br>
&lt;emeyer> astearns: We may want a central place to document all of this<br>
&lt;emeyer> astearns: Any objections?<br>
&lt;emeyer> (silence)<br>
&lt;emeyer> RESOLVED: Add an `anchor-scope` property<br>
&lt;vmpstr> vmpstr<br>
&lt;emeyer> vmpstr: Will style containment still scope acnhors independent of this property?<br>
&lt;emeyer> fantasai: Yes<br>
&lt;emeyer> astearns: It would win, I believe<br>
&lt;emeyer> fantasai: Yes<br>
</details>

_Originally posted by @css-meeting-bot in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9045#issuecomment-1721297734_
            

Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/11374 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Sunday, 15 December 2024 17:26:32 UTC