- 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