[css-align] editorial: Inconsistent "Applies to" section for place-items?

[MatsPalmgren]

https://drafts.csswg.org/css-align/#place-items-property

place-items:
Applies to: block-level boxes, absolutely-positioned boxes, and grid items

align-items
Applies to: block-level elements

justify-items
Applies to: block containers and grid containers

This seems rather inconsistent... is it correct?

Anyway, I would prefer if all the new place- shorthands just say "see individual properties"
in all the Initial/Applies to/Inherited/Percentages/... sections as usual for shorthands.

[MatsPalmgren]

Thanks for the fix. I think you should do the same to place-content and place-self.
https://drafts.csswg.org/css-align/#propdef-place-content
https://drafts.csswg.org/css-align/#propdef-place-self

Also, "Percentages", "Media" and "Inherited" could also use the "see individual properties"
description. Some shorthand descriptions do so anyway:
https://drafts.csswg.org/css-flexbox/#propdef-flex

Perhaps you should create some kind of template/macro for shorthands that does this
for you automatically and consistently?

[fantasai]

I think actually there's a Bikeshed command that fills in missing fields with "see individual properties"; I should probably use that. My concern about this is that, as we use shorthands more and more frequently, it makes it much more difficult for authors who are referencing the specs to look things up. To the extent that the value of the field is simple, I think it's more usable to leave these fields filled in. The main downside is the potential for out-of-sync errors.