- From: Matt Rakow <marakow@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 20:00:38 +0000
- To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>
>> (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)? Ah, my wording was ambiguous. What I should have said was: After content change, resnapping must/may occur for mandatory/proximity snap points (no divergence). IF that resnapping occurs, the SAME snap point must/should be resnapped to for mandatory/proximity (was should/should in Tab/Elika's proposal). Thanks, -Matt
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2016 20:01:13 UTC