- From: Javier Contreras via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2026 16:44:21 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
In my opinion, ***option 1*** feels too restrictive, somewhat unintuitive (due to moving inset-behavior outside of the inset property), and additionally has the warts discussed above. ***Options 2a and 2b*** feel overly complex for what should be more simple and intuitive behavior, and the cascade-hostile aspect of them seem like red flags to me. As such, I personally think I like ***Option 3*** the best. It covers the basic cases for which there will be use cases, and it does it in a way that is easy to explain and easy to reason about. It provides decent extensibility moving forward without the fundamental limitations and complexities of the other options. However, I don't love the names `intersecting` and `dangling`. I think `dangling` has somewhat of negative connotations and not as easy to understand for non-native english speakers. Some alternatives I would propose are `intersecting/nonintersecting`, `open/closed` and `blocked/unblocked`. I think the last two suggestions read naturally (i.e. "for closed endpoints, overlap-join; for open endpoints, inset 0"), are the simplest vocab-wise and fulfill the key idea that the name should describe the visual condition of the endpoint -- GitHub Notification of comment by jav099 Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/13697#issuecomment-4200718700 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2026 16:44:22 UTC