Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-anchor-position] When does anchor-scope "match" a name? (#10526)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-anchor-position] When does anchor-scope "match" a name?`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: whenever you are comparing names, and at least one is tree scoped, then both are tree scoped, and the scoping has to be exact (not subtree)`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;chrishtr> tabatkins: in anchor positioning, anchor names and references are tree scoped<br>
&lt;chrishtr> tabatkins: the anchor-scope property that scopes, does not say whether the names are tree scoped or not<br>
&lt;chrishtr> tabatkins: question to decide: should they be?<br>
&lt;chrishtr> tabatkins: I think the answer should be yes<br>
&lt;chrishtr> tabatkins: if you have an anchor in a shadow tree with a part involved, then problems result<br>
&lt;chrishtr> tabatkins: if anchor scopes are not tree scoped<br>
&lt;chrishtr> tabatkins: this is bad, so I think it should be tree scoped<br>
&lt;khush> sounds pretty reasonable<br>
&lt;Rossen3> q?<br>
&lt;andruud> q+<br>
&lt;fantasai> makes sense to me as far as I can understand it :)<br>
&lt;Rossen3> ack andruud<br>
&lt;chrishtr> andruud: is this the first time we have a tree scoped name on both sides of a comparison, without one being a reference?<br>
&lt;chrishtr> tabatkins: I believe yes<br>
&lt;chrishtr> andruud: should we make a more general design statement then?<br>
&lt;chrishtr> tabatkins: yes I think we should<br>
&lt;chrishtr> andruud: would be good to resolve on that<br>
&lt;chrishtr> tabatkins: I'm good with a broader resolution to set a precedent<br>
&lt;chrishtr> andruud: what about references vs names?<br>
&lt;chrishtr> tabatkins: yeah those are different<br>
&lt;khush> q+<br>
&lt;fantasai> agree that name-matching should probably be tree-scoped<br>
&lt;chrishtr> rossen: it matches the exact match of the ident and tree scope, is that what you were referring to in option 2?<br>
&lt;chrishtr> andruud: yes<br>
&lt;Rossen3> ack khush<br>
&lt;chrishtr> khush: thinking about this in the context of view transitions: in that API you give names and the tree scope has to be the same for them to match<br>
&lt;chrishtr> khush: there is another view transitions feature where I'm not sure if the spec says it's tree scoped<br>
&lt;chrishtr> khush: want to make sure that feature is covered by the more general resolution<br>
&lt;chrishtr> tabatkins: proposed more general resolution: whenever you are comparing names, and at least one is tree scoped, then both are tree scoped, and the scoping has to be exact (not subtree)<br>
&lt;chrishtr> RESOLVED: whenever you are comparing names, and at least one is tree scoped, then both are tree scoped, and the scoping has to be exact (not subtree)<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10526#issuecomment-2358888109 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2024 16:13:44 UTC