- From: Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 15:42:14 +0000
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 15:20:41, fantasai wrote: > > On 05/01/2016 10:40 PM, Brad Kemper wrote: > > > >> On Apr 30, 2016, at 11:25 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> > wrote: > >> > >> There's an issue marked in the spec for a better name for this > >> concept: > >> > >> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-snappoints/#definitions > >> # snap alignment container > >> # A scroll container's snap alignment container is the > >> # rectangle obtained by reducing its visual viewport > >> # by its scroll-snap-padding. > >> # > >> # ISSUE: Better name for this concept? > >> > >> I propose "scroll snap window", "snap window" for short! > >> (I.e. use "snap window" but allow other specs to cross-link in to > >> "scroll snap window" for better context.) > >> > >> Advantages: > >> * shorter and easy to pronounce > >> * relates to the concept of having a hole inside which we're > >> viewing stuff, which is what it is > >> * doesn't use the overloaded word "viewport" > >> > >> Disadvantages: > >> * ??? Window has a very well defined meaning and object representation in just about any platform including ours. I'd wouldn't like us to be in a position where we have to explain why the window object has no snap API to it ... :) > > > > It's OK, but I prefer "snap-port" to imply the relationship to the viewport. > > I'm happy with "scroll snapport" as well. Both window and viewport/port are pretty high level concepts IMO. Why can't we use "snap-box" since what we're actually doing is snapping boxes to other boxes. Cheers, Rossen
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2016 15:42:47 UTC