Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-anchor-position-1] Bikeshed name of `inset-area` (#10209)

> 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