- From: Tim Nguyen via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 00:31:03 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> I thought it came from the fact that you were picking an area within the inset- modified-containing-block? From #9145: "In the current spec you'd write that as bottom: anchor(top); right: anchor(right);; in this proposal you'd alternately be able to write inset-area: top / start center; and get the same effect." The very first proposal in that issue saw `inset-area` as an alternative to setting two of the `inset` longhands. > I thought it came from the fact that you were picking an area within the inset- modified-containing-block? In terms of explaining what this property does for developers, I actually think it's pretty important to tie it to insets, so they know it lives within the IMCB. Calling it position-area feels more confusing actually. My mental model is that there is a containing block that is picked by `position` that `inset-area` modifies that containing block, just like `position-anchor` does. It does not pick an area inside the containing block, but modifies the containing block itself. The problem with the `inset-*` naming is that it implies overriding the other `inset` properties. It's not obvious you can use both `inset-area` and `inset` together to inset from the containing block that `inset-area` has defined. -- GitHub Notification of comment by nt1m Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10209#issuecomment-2125988059 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2024 00:31:04 UTC