- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2025 18:08:52 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-anchor-position] Default alignment in center track.`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: Default alignment in the center track (single track), default alignment is 'center' not 'anchor-center'.` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <TabAtkins> fantasai: i think we got the default alginment wrong for the center track<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: you can be in the center track, or span two, or span all three<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: with all three, you want anchor-center by default so you're connected to the anchor<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: but when you're just in the center track, anchor-center tries to put you centered on the anchor even if you specify an inset<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: if you are using an inset, tho, usually that means you're compensating for something<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai:<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: so i think it makes more sense to actually center when we're in just the center track<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: kizu posted an example where using center looks weird with the insets, but i think that's actually another bug in chrome, where anchor-center isn't paying attention to the insets properly<br> <kizu> q+<br> <fantasai> This makes a difference if the author applies asymmetric insets, e.g. given a 100px anchor, suppose there's a 10px inset on the right. Should the item be centered against the entire anchor, or against the inset area?<br> <astearns> ack kizu<br> <kizu> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12020<br> <TabAtkins> kizu: i think i prefer to account for inset-area more<br> <TabAtkins> kizu: if you're compensating for the dimensions of something, we should honor that<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: [example time]<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: anchor element, with two bits, a main and a extra bit on the right<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: i want my abspos to be below the anchor<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: i want to compensate for the right bit, i'm not centering on that<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: so use some `right: 10px` to shrink my area to match excluding the right bit of the anchor<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: so now my IMCB is a little smaller, centered on the "main" bit of the anchor that I want<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: i think it should center in that remaining space<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: current spec says to use anchor-center<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: which'll ignore the insets, it's caring about the anchor itself not the IMCB<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: so I think if the author is explicitly using an inset we should pay attention to that. default shoudl be center, not anchor-center<br> <bkardell> sounds reasonable<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: In the overflow case, where abspos is larger than the IMCB.<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: you're saying that it's a chrome bug?<br> <fantasai> fantasai: Yeah, it'll center against the anchor box, ignoring the insets<br> <fantasai> fantasai: and I think it should honor the insets<br> <TabAtkins> (in other words, it should decenter when it's wide enough to hit one edge of the IMCB)<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: I don't think I have a strong opinion. Ian, do you have any compat concerns?<br> <fantasai> iank_: probably compat wise is fine, early enough<br> <fantasai> iank_: people are usually using top/bottom, not center<br> <fantasai> astearns: Roman, sounds ok?<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: we're basically showing off his example<br> <fantasai> PROPOSED: Default alignment in the center track (single track), default alignment is 'center' not 'anchor-center'.<br> <fantasai> RESOLVED: Default alignment in the center track (single track), default alignment is 'center' not 'anchor-center'.<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/11803#issuecomment-2776567379 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2025 18:08:53 UTC