- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2025 02:08:59 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-anchor-position-1] Allow anchor references to match names in outer tree scopes`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: Accept the edits` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <kbabbitt> TabAtkins: this is an issue where I went ahead and synthesized feedback into a spec edit<br> <kbabbitt> ... andruud realized we didn't have a spec edit<br> <kbabbitt> ... smal change to how we resolve anchor names and references with shadow trees involved<br> <kbabbitt> ... prevoiusly could not reach out in either direction<br> <kbabbitt> ... I've dropped a small tweak in that allows an anchor name to be defined higher up in shadow tree<br> <kbabbitt> ... and anchor reference in shadows can refer to that<br> <kbabbitt> ... will do standard thing of looking up tree ignoring shadow boundaries until it finds a name<br> <adamargyle> +1<br> <kbabbitt> ... satisfies westbrook's use case<br> <sorvell> +1<br> <kbabbitt> ... there is still the other side where you want an anchor name defined deep in a shadow referenceable elsewhere in tree<br> <kbabbitt> ... requires more explicit opt-in to be safe in my opinion<br> <sorvell> +1<br> <kbabbitt> ... would like to work on in the future but for now I think spec is in a good state<br> <kbabbitt> ... so if there are no objections we can resolve to take these edits<br> <astearns> ack kizu<br> <astearns> ack fantasai<br> <Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to ask about other naming<br> <florian> q?<br> <kbabbitt> fantasai: could you summarize for the group... we have a variety of name matching behaviors, what's changed?<br> <kbabbitt> TabAtkins: previously in the spec, anchor names were tree scoped names<br> <kbabbitt> ... carry around identity / style tree they were defined in<br> <kbabbitt> ... anchor names were strict tree scoped references<br> <kbabbitt> ... would only match tree scoped names defined in same tree as they were<br> <kbabbitt> ... now they are loose tree scope names<br> <kbabbitt> ... will match any names in their own tree or higher up tree<br> <kbabbitt> ... if trees don't have parent-child relationship they won't match<br> <kbabbitt> ... can define in parent component, top level component, any tree will see that<br> <kbabbitt> fantasai: did we change how it works for other props?<br> <kbabbitt> TabAtkins: we have not right now because we haven't rewritten scoping rules for timelines to match anchors<br> <kbabbitt> ... but intention is to keep all those concepts resolving exactly as identically as possible<br> <kbabbitt> astearns: do we have that intent written down?<br> <kbabbitt> TabAtkins: we resolved on it during breakout in Paris<br> <kbabbitt> astearns: do we need CSS operations module or something that collects some of these cross module resolutions<br> <kbabbitt> ... we do have space on wiki for design principles, this seems like something that should go there<br> <kbabbitt> TabAtkins: seems reasonable<br> <kbabbitt> astearns: other comments?<br> <kbabbitt> Proposed: Accept the edits<br> <kbabbitt> RESOLVED: Accept the edits<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9408#issuecomment-3524810910 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2025 02:09:00 UTC