Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-anchor-position-1] Inconsistent naming of `position-area` values (#12749)

The CSS Working Group just discussed ``[css-anchor-position-1] Inconsistent naming of `position-area` values``, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: accept jfkthame's proposal in the issue`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;kbabbitt> TabAtkins: right now the logical keywords in position-area have both container relative directions and self relative directions<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... we named the self ones by adding the word self into the keyword<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... logic we have for placing self ones is that it goes before logical part<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... [gives example]<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... was brought up by ? that this is difficult to predict where the self goes<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... sometimes start of keyword, sometimes middle depending on how many keywords are logical<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... would prefer something consisitent<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... I have no issue with this<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> s/?/jfkthame/<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> TabAtkins: propose we adopt jfkthame's proposal to move self consistently to the start of the keyword<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> astearns: to the portion of the value that is the logical keyword<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> TabAtkins: no, to the start of the keyword<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... right now it could be in the middle<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> astearns: oh his second set has self as the second clause<br>
&lt;fantasai> Currently it's x-self-start, suggestion is to change to self-x-start<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> TabAtkins: yes, the start of the direction part<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> astearns: yes<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> TabAtkins: proposal is as jfkthame said in the issue<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> astearns: Proposal is to accept jfkthame's proposal in the issue<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> fantasai: one caveat is that these have been implemented<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... but very rarely deployed<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... we don't expect a lot of use of these<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> astearns: so now is the time to make the change if we can<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> fantasai: yes<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> astearns: objections?<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> RESOLVED: accept jfkthame's proposal in the issue<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12749#issuecomment-3357137483 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2025 16:14:19 UTC