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

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Myles C. Maxfield <mmaxfield@apple.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 15, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com> wrote:
>>>> On 16 Jan 2016, at 10:52 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>>>>> Ok.  Did you and Apple discuss any additional clarifications that
>>>>> should be added to address their original concerns?
>>>>
>>>> Not specifically, no. But we did just check in a bunch of clarifications
>>>> in response to Sebastian Zartner's email:
>>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2016Jan/0099.html
>>>
>>> We asked for 2d snap points to be deferred from this version. Is there
>>> anyone actively arguing for it? I thought we agreed in Japan that the
>>> use case either could be done another way or wasn't necessary (sorry,
>>> foggy memory as usual).
>>
>> No, it definitely can't be done in another way, and for the use-cases
>> presented, it is necessary.
>
> This is correct, Dean's memory was foggy. Our objection was that implementing it is too difficult to understand all the behaviors that would be caused by the property.

Is this objection against the current version of 2d snapping, or an
older one?  Earlier versions of the proposal (pre-Sapporo) made the
"1d or 2d" decision on a per-element basis, which resulted in some
incoherence in the model that was understandably icky.  The current
version puts the decision on the container, so the only difference is
that the container has to choose both axis positions from a single
element, rather than potentially grabbing each from a different
element.  There shouldn't be anything hard-to-understand about it now.

~TJ

Received on Saturday, 16 January 2016 01:13:43 UTC