Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-anchor-position] Default alignments for inset areas are wrong (#10313)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-anchor-position] Default alignments for inset areas are wrong`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: If inset-area spans both of the tracks we'll align toward the missing track instead of centering`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;emilio> fantasai: initial value for align/justify-self is normal<br>
&lt;emilio> ... generally depends on context to an appropriate behavior<br>
&lt;emilio> ... for inset-area we try to make the default alignment for the area useful<br>
&lt;emilio> ... so if you're in the center track we center<br>
&lt;emilio> ... if you're on the edge we align toward the area<br>
&lt;emilio> ... if you're spanning into two tracks<br>
&lt;emilio> ... and there the default is anchor-center, but that's generally not what you want<br>
&lt;kizu> q+<br>
&lt;emilio> ... the usual thing is to align towards the track you're excluding<br>
&lt;emilio> ... it's easy to center if needed<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> q+<br>
&lt;astearns> ack kizu<br>
&lt;emilio> kizu: tested r/n, I think it works well when the anchor is smaller than the positioned element<br>
&lt;emilio> ... when the anchor is bigger it looks better with anchor-center<br>
&lt;emilio> fantasai: typically in that case you keep aligned to one edge and overflow<br>
&lt;emilio> kizu: can we define anchor-center to try not to shrink to the center area<br>
&lt;emilio> ... only if it's not fitting shifted it'd work better<br>
&lt;emilio> TabAtkins: tracked on a different issue<br>
&lt;emilio> ... not on the agenda this week<br>
&lt;astearns> ack TabAtkins<br>
&lt;emilio> kizu: no objection then<br>
&lt;emilio> TabAtkins: no objection from us either<br>
&lt;emilio> ... what kizu described was the originally what I wanted<br>
&lt;emilio> ... but I deferred the shifting<br>
&lt;emilio> ... because I wanted to fix it more generally<br>
&lt;emilio> ... so tldr agree with the change<br>
&lt;emilio> ... also our impl actually matches that resolution because engineers misread the conditions<br>
&lt;emilio> PROPOSED: If inset-area spans both of the tracks we'll align toward the missing track instead of centering<br>
&lt;emilio> RESOLVED: If inset-area spans both of the tracks we'll align toward the missing track instead of centering<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> s/both of the/two/<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10313#issuecomment-2112996339 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Wednesday, 15 May 2024 16:35:50 UTC