W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2014

Re: [css-snappoints] Blink team position on snap points

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:21:11 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLYAtjECvo-yoRwLkLMXzyYA0vJAfAvvpkp3nzp7VU4xyw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Cc: Matt Rakow <marakow@microsoft.com>, Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Nathaniel Duca <nduca@chromium.org>
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote:
>>> Instead of hard coding snap points into the platform, we'd rather the
>>> platform was powerful enough that framework authors can implement snap
>>> points themselves.
>>> As Rick stated, we're not opposed to this working group pursuing snap
>>> points.
>> These two positions seem inconsistent to me. If you don't want snapping
>> hard-coded into the platform, you should be opposed to the working group
>> pursuing that.
> Why's that?

This seems so obvious to me that I find it difficult to explain further,
but maybe I misunderstood what you said.

Clearly you plan to develop some kind of DOM API giving the control of
scrolling you want, and let's assume that effort succeeds. If the working
group standardizes a CSS scroll-snapping API, would you simply refuse to
implement it forever, or would you wait to see if it gets adopted before
implementing, or would you happily implement it in addition to your DOM API?

Jtehsauts  tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy  Mdaon  yhoaus  eanuttehrotraiitny  eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o  Whhei csha iids  teoa
stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d  'mYaonu,r  "sGients  uapr,e  tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
'm aotr  atnod  sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t"  uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n?  gBoutt  uIp
waanndt  wyeonut  thoo mken.o w
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2014 21:21:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:19 UTC