- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 11:44:53 -0700
- To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
While we're getting all judgy, I want to reiterate that *our proposal can comfortably be modified to just be an extension of the current spec, if necessary*: On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > It's possible that at this point we've implemented ourselves into a > corner, and we're stuck with a suboptimal solution due to shipping > implementations. It's still possible to retrofit our spec onto Matt's > spec, it just results in less-optimal names for some properties. In > particular: > > * scroll-snap-type is common between the two specs. No change necessary. > * Use scroll-snap-coordinate/destination instead of scroll-snap-align. > The naming isn't ideal, but it's also not *terrible*. Just > longer/more complex words than I like. *-coordinate gains the "group" > keyword for invoking grouping. > * Drop scroll-snap-points-x/y if possible; their only purpose is to do > the container-defined snap lines, which I think we generally agree > aren't actually that useful. If we do end up wanting to keep it, > sure, whatever, it doesn't *harm* anyone, it's just an unnecessary and > slightly weird part of the model. > * Add the rest of the properties from our spec. > > ...it's actually easier to merge than I thought. Cool. I don't want this message to get lost behind the separate threads about feedback and shipping. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 7 August 2015 18:45:40 UTC