- From: fantasai via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2025 21:43:44 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
fantasai has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts: == [css-anchor-position-1] More intuitive alignment defaults when using one-sided insets == In absolute positioning in general, if an author sets one inset and leaves the other one 'auto', we attach the absolutely positioned box to that edge (by magically resolving the `auto` inset to an appropriate length to make the containing block snugly fit the box into that position). But with `position-area`, we resolve all 'auto' insets to zero, which means that we lose this behavior. There are two downsides to this: - It's likely unexpected, since this works elsewhere. Usually the default alignment is what's wanted, but for center tracks, there's a little more room for preferences. - The alignment properties are fundamentally logical, but `position-area` has options for fully logical, fully physical, and logical-physical placement combinations, so controlling the position within an area with alignment properties is not always ideal. We could consider altering the alignment behavior for `position-area` so that in the cases where there is only one `auto` inset, we still resolve that to a used value of zero (leaving us with a usefully-sized containing block, if the author changes the alignment), but also resolve `normal` alignment to attach to the non-auto edge instead of to its usual area-based default. What do people think? CC @kizu @mirisuzanne Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12512 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 21 July 2025 21:43:45 UTC