- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:13:06 +0900
- To: Matt Rakow <marakow@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>
> On Jan 14, 2016, at 10:17, Matt Rakow <marakow@microsoft.com> wrote: > > (3) Replaced usage of "viewport" with "visual viewport". The two-viewport model still needs to be spec'd, but for those not familiar with that model, this would be the "actually what I'm seeing" viewport as opposed to the "used for layout purposes" viewport. > (4) Specified that scroll-snap-padding does accept percentages (percentages are relative to the scroll container's visual viewport). I have not reviewed the parts you're referring to, so I'm making no judgement as to whether this is the correct behavior to spec or not, but I wanted to come in support of the terminology. "Visual viewport" is the term we should use for this concept, and we need to define it in device-adaptation (luckily, you and I are co-editors, so we just have to find time to make it happen). > (6) More explicit description of the re-snap requirement -- mostly just clarification, but does add that mandatory snap points "must"/"should" re-snap to the previously snapped position for "mandatory"/"proximity" respectively (was "should" for both in Tab/Elika's proposal). Don't we have a resolution that makes it must for both, with some extra wording to avoid requiring it in the cases where it would be impossible (point no longer exist, etc)? - Florian
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2016 04:13:34 UTC