Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-anchor-position] Add containing block rules to acceptable elements in top layer (#11602)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-anchor-position] Add containing block rules to acceptable elements in top layer`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: No change, anchors in previous top layers is intentionally allowed.`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins: Rules for determing whether something is an acceptable anchor element, when talking about top layer<br>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins: if your positoined element is in top layer and anchor is in a previous top layer, it's acceptable<br>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins: Reason for this in spec is, our only requirement for being reasonable anchor is that it is fully sized and positioned before the abspos<br>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins: conditions are there to set up that situation<br>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins: top layers are defined to fully lay out atomically, so later top layer can depend on earlier top layers being fully laid out<br>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins: I'm not certain if OP is confused about conditions, or if pointing out something I'm missing<br>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins: pointing out case of positioned element is in a relpos dialog that is opened into top layer<br>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins: so dialog is in top layer, and anchor is in preceding top layer<br>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins: in the normal page, something outside your CB is never acceptable  because not guaranteed to be laid out yet<br>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins: so limited there<br>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins: but that's because all in the same page<br>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins: but in this case, because separate top layers, no dependency because previous top layer is already laid out<br>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins: I think this is close no change, unless I'm missing something<br>
&lt;astearns> q?<br>
&lt;fantasai> astearns: propose no change, anchors in previous top layers is intentionally allowed<br>
&lt;fantasai> astearns: if we're wrong, OP will likely let us know?<br>
&lt;fantasai> kizu: No objection, but could we qualify this in the spec<br>
&lt;fantasai> kizu: when we talk about restrictions, if we talk about why we do this restriction<br>
&lt;fantasai> kizu: that way when you read it you understand<br>
&lt;fantasai> kizu: why it's different in this case<br>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins: I do have a note preceding the algorithm explaining its intent<br>
&lt;fantasai> RESOLVED: No change, anchors in previous top layers is intentionally allowed.<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/11602#issuecomment-2776712198 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 19:17:47 UTC