- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 22:38:48 +0200
- To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Cc: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Also sprach Alan Stearns: > > > Yes, that’s correct. Perhaps you’d add a class to the elements that should > > > snap their lines (this would work for opt-out as well). I’m still in favor > > > of opt-in, given Dave’s evaluation that there would be fewer elements > > > using the grid than not. Do you want to argue for the opt-out scheme with > > > a single property? > > > >The one-property solution described in CSS Books gives you both opt-in > >and opt-out so there's not much reason to argue. > > I’m perfectly willing to continue arguing for two properties instead of > one :) > > I’m interested to know whether Mr. Päper has a preference. My point is that the solution with the single property supports both opt-in and opt-out. Noone has proposed a single-proporty solution with only opt-out. > >Opt-in: > > > > p, dt, dd, li, blockquote, pre { baseline-snap: root } > > This only allows for opt-in for the root grid (or some other named grid). > If (as I’d like) we aren’t going to do named grids for the first level, > then you need two properties for opt-in. 'root' is just a keyword, it's not part of a generic grid-naming system with namespace complexities and such. One extra keyword is a small price to pay to avoid an extra property. Also, by having that extra keyword we solve Liam's use case. And, it's implemented. Cheers, -h&kon Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2014 20:39:17 UTC