W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2016

RE: [css-snappoints] [css-scroll-snap] Summary of latest updates 1/13

From: Matt Rakow <marakow@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 19:56:10 +0000
To: Matt Rakow <marakow@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
CC: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>
Message-ID: <BLUPR03MB3575A92EECC16015A4B5021ADCC0@BLUPR03MB357.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
I just realized I accidentally skipped over one of my commits when building the divergence list, which had two more divergences:

(1) I also specified that scroll-snap-align with two values maps the first value to X axis and the second value to Y axis, rather than to the inline and block axes.  This is to avoid the problem that scroll-snap-padding and scroll-snap-area were defined in physical but scroll-snap-align was defined in logical, which I suspect would result in unintended axis mismatch when used across various writing modes.

I also added an open issue to the spec on this topic -- any concerns with this approach, or perhaps we should respec to say that all 3 properties are in logical?  As we've discussed previously there are scenarios for both physical and logical (e.g. slideshows vs. document pagination), but my gut feel is that physical comprises the majority of scenarios.

(2) I omitted the "edges" value from scroll-snap-align.  I discussed this with Tab and Elika on a video conference a while back, but if anyone else is particularly interested in this value we can certainly discuss including it.  Otherwise I'm assuming it will eventually be up for discussion in a level 2.

Thanks,
-Matt
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2016 19:56:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:59 UTC