Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-anchor-position-1] Allow more properties in position fallbacks (#9195)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-anchor-position-1] Allow more properties in position fallbacks`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Remove border/padding.`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;emilio> TabAtkins: we have some spec for properties allowed to be set in @position-try / auto-flipped by the automatic keywords<br>
&lt;emilio> ... previous resolution we added margin/border/padding<br>
&lt;emilio> ... the internal properties are more problematic than expected<br>
&lt;florian> q?<br>
&lt;florian> q+<br>
&lt;emilio> ... current proposal reflected in the ED is to only accept insets (including inset-area) / margin / sizing and self-alignment properties<br>
&lt;astearns> ack florian<br>
&lt;emilio> florian: the removal of border-padding makes sense if we can solve it through some other system<br>
&lt;emilio> ... such as something like container queries<br>
&lt;emilio> ... seems plausible that this should work<br>
&lt;emilio> TabAtkins: we're only removing it through implementation difficulty issues<br>
&lt;astearns> ack fantasai<br>
&lt;emilio> ... so we can revise<br>
&lt;emilio> fantasai: any property in the position fallbacks are risky because they don't play with the cascade properly<br>
&lt;emilio> ... the anchor positioning styling will override everything<br>
&lt;emilio> ... including in the more important layer<br>
&lt;emilio> ... it's important to limit the properties that fit in the position try blocks<br>
&lt;emilio> ... any other kind of styling needs to happen in some conditional styling system needs to play well with origin / specificity / etc<br>
&lt;miriam> q+<br>
&lt;emilio> ... I'm fine with these but we should not do the conditional styling<br>
&lt;astearns> ack miriam<br>
&lt;emilio> ... the more you can shift into that the better because it cascade properly<br>
&lt;emilio> s/cascade/cascades/<br>
&lt;emilio> miriam: these properties don't change the result you get<br>
&lt;emilio> ... when you choose what try block to use is not based on what layout to use right?<br>
&lt;emilio> TabAtkins: it is, it is based on whether you overflow with those<br>
&lt;emilio> miriam: ah, so you can't just put them in queries<br>
&lt;emilio> darn<br>
&lt;emilio> florian: anchor-default is not in this list, why?<br>
&lt;emilio> TabAtkins: I think it should be into the list<br>
&lt;emilio> astearns: separate issue?<br>
&lt;emilio> TabAtkins: that's fine<br>
&lt;emilio> dholbert: following up, @position-try order evaluation is independent<br>
&lt;emilio> ... to the sizing properties etc<br>
&lt;emilio> TabAtkins: you don't need to layout the elements but you need to know the inset properties<br>
&lt;dholbert> s/@position-try order/position-try-order: [...]/<br>
&lt;emilio> RESOLVED: Remove border/padding.<br>
&lt;dholbert> s/inset properties/inset properties in order to determine the inset-modified containing block/ (in what Tab said)<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9195#issuecomment-1942297101 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2024 19:48:52 UTC