W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > July to September 2018

Agenda+ updating css-logical-1

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2018 00:48:47 -0700
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Cc: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, 'WWW International' <www-international@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0969a3d9-2faa-8ccd-d92f-afc628802a4c@inkedblade.net>
François and I went through the open issues against css-logical-1 today.
There weren't very many, but we closed off some mainly-editorial ones,
edited in some outstanding resolutions, and triaged the rest.

There are a couple we'd like to run by the WG before requesting publication,
as current implementations of certain properties violate both points:

1. flow-relative values compute to themselves
    This was implied by the spec before (the relevant properties computed
    values were defined “as specified”), but we're making it more explicit
    by copying that line into the css-logical-1 spec as well.

    As pointed out in the issue, inherited properties like text-align will
    break if we didn't do this.

2. flow-relative values reference containing block or element writing mode?
    This is currently defined on a per-property basis. For example, the
    'text-align' and 'align-content' properties map 'start' against the
    element's own writing mode (the CB would make no sense), whereas the
    'align-self' and 'float' properties map against the CB's writing mode
    so that the contents of the element don't affect its positioning.

And lastly, we think it's time to drop the backgrounds section, as it's
still Experimental sketching and the rest of the spec is in the Revising
stage and moving towards CR:

3. https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3028

There are two additional issues that we opened based on past www-style
discussion, which are marked in the draft as an open discussion and are
looking for feedback:
The authoring perspective would be particularly useful on 3029; we weren't
able to come up with concrete use cases to guide us one way or the other.
(Failing that, we'll probably resolve based on implementation complexity.)
Our suggestion is to publish after resolving the first three issues, leaving
these two open for discussion.

Received on Saturday, 18 August 2018 07:49:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:41:13 UTC