- From: fantasai via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2025 19:43:40 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@AleksandrHovhannisyan I think both approaches make sense. There wasn't much discussion of the option you're describing here, because nobody proposed it. Might have been an interesting discussion to have had earlier, but I suspect at this point it's to late to make syntactic changes that don't have very compelling "this is super confusing as-is" arguments? Fwiw, I think people are often confused by "these properties go on the container vs these properties go on the child", so having this distinction encoded in the syntax might not be a bad outcome here. All that said, I think the issue you filed is really great. You not only took the initiative to go from "this bit of the spec bugs me" to filing an issue, you did a really good job of outlining your concern and explaining it. And it's a reasonable and useful input to have into the design of the Anchor Positioning spec! I wish we'd had it a little earlier in the process. :) -- GitHub Notification of comment by fantasai Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12789#issuecomment-3373666885 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 6 October 2025 19:43:41 UTC