You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
After the updating of offset-position and offset-path, we have the offset transform (and create stacking context) only when offset-path is not none. offset-position is used only when offset-path functions don't specify the offset starting position.
The exclamation point (!) doesn't make sense now. It's not necessary to have offset-position if we don't specify offset-path. Perhaps we should always specify offset-path, and move offset-position together with offset-anchor or other places?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@BorisChiou It looks like browsers ended up implementing the current syntax. So it's probably too late to move <'offset-position'> together with <'offset-anchor'>. Though maybe an HTTP archive check could proof the opposite.
Do I understand you correctly that you want to change the syntax to the following?
looks much better than the original one because offset-position is ignored if we don't have an valid offset-path.
The design idea of the current shorthand syntax is because offset-position may create a stacking context, and it could be used independently. However, we change its meaning in 2023 but we probably forgot to change the shorthand at the same time.
Anyone able to do a more granular HTTP Archive query to get numbers on this?
What's needed is a check on usages of <'offset-position'> value usages in the offset shorthand property, or more precisely, the combination <'offset-position'> <'offset-path'>.
After the updating of
offset-position
andoffset-path
, we have the offset transform (and create stacking context) only whenoffset-path
is notnone
.offset-position
is used only whenoffset-path
functions don't specify the offset starting position.So the current syntax of
offset
shorthand is out-of-date.The exclamation point (
!
) doesn't make sense now. It's not necessary to haveoffset-position
if we don't specifyoffset-path
. Perhaps we should always specifyoffset-path
, and moveoffset-position
together withoffset-anchor
or other places?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: