W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2015

Re: [css-snappoints] Alternate Scroll Snapping Model

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 11:44:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDD-RzWB0oaUbhb2u9cg=fYd2rJo030WE_2E=dfVJG7N_g@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 7 August 2015 18:45:41 UTC