-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 756
Description
We have at least one spot in the spec, currently, where behavior differs based on whether an element is "using anchor positioning" or not (and which isn't directly about anchors) - an element "using anchor positioning" uses the "scrolling containing block" rather than the "local containing block" when a scroll container generates its CB. We are thinking about adding more, like in #10258.
"Using anchor positioning" is currently handwaved as "has a non-none value for position-area". This is definitely a sufficient signal for the use of anchor positioning, but it's not a necessary one - an author can use anchor positioning (or at least indicate their interest in anchor positioning) in other ways:
- set
position-anchorto a non-initial value (but they might be using anchor positioning with the default value) - use an
anchor()function in their inset properties - use an
anchor-size()function in several of their sizing properties
Talking with @bfgeek, we think we should add at least some of these additional signals to the concept (and actually dfn the term while we're at it). Which should we add?
- I think a non-initial
position-anchoris a gimme. Especially if we do re-addimplicitas a keyword to be explicit about it (or be more specific about the implicit source, like addingpopoverorpseudoor something). - I guess use of an anchor function in inset/sizing properties is okay, it's just.... weird. You can "use" anchor functions in ways that don't actually get "used", like variable fallback, and it's unclear how we might want that to trigger. But it's kinda weird if we have behavior designed to make anchorpos work better and it doesn't trigger when you're literally using
top: anchor().
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Type
Projects
Status