Re: [css-position-3] Rewrite Completed

> On Apr 29, 2020, at 11:41, fantasai <[email protected]> =
wrote:
>=20
> Hi everyone,
> Tab and I finished a complete rewrite of the CSS Positioning Level 3 =
spec today. There are no new features, but we integrated it with the =
current state of css-align-3 and css-writing-modes-3 and referenced =
css-display-3 and css-sizing-3 where appropriate. We left the old abspos =
layout chapter intact as a reference for now: there should be no change =
in behavior in the default writing-mode + self-alignment case.
>=20
> We'd like to publish an updated Working Draft after everyone has a =
chance to review and flag any obvious errors.
>=20
> I'm hoping by tomorrow the draft server will finish rebuilding [1], =
but for now you can view the draft here:
>  =
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2020Apr/att-0006/Overview=
.html
>=20
> [1] https://drafts.csswg.org/css-position-3/

Nice!

=46rom an editorial standpoint, I like it a lot. Well done! For a =
correctness standpoint, it looks right on a first read, but we all =
should certainly spend some time looking at it closely; some of this is =
very subtle.

Here are a few comments/suggestions, all in one place for now, in case =
you find a number of them easy to just fix without further debate, but =
for anything you think needs substantial discussion, I'm happy to move =
to github.

* Throughout the document, linkify "out of flow"

* in the definition of sticky positioning, there's "in whichever axes =
the inset properties are not both auto". Negated conjunctions are =
confusing, and sticky positioning isn't easy. Maybe just skip that part =
of the sentence, and defer details to the later section on sticky =
positioning instead of providing a terse but hard to grok summary.

* I think that "fixed positioning containing block" is new terminology. =
It seems to me that css-contain (level 2) should be updated to use it, =
and maybe there could be a note in css-positioning pointing to layout =
and paint containment. I don't recall anything else creating "fixed =
positioning containing block", but if there's such a thing, it'd be nice =
to mention it in that note as well.

* Section 3.4 on sticky positioning is really dense. It looks right, but =
I found this to be the part of the document I had to re-read the most to =
convince myself I understood what it meant. I don't have any particular =
advice as to how to make it better just yet, but I think we should try =
to improve it some more, because as it is, it's hard. Until something =
more profound, a couple of minor tweaks:
  - within that section, linkify "scrollport"
  - "then the effective end-edge inset in the affected axis is =
reduced<ins>, possibly becoming negative if necessary,</ins> to bring =
the sticky view rectangle=E2=80=99s size up to the size of the border =
box in that axis"

* In section 3.5 on absolute positioning:
  - a couple of things aren't cross-linking properly: "self-start", =
"self-end"
  - "then the weaker inset in the affected axis is reduced<ins>, =
possibly becoming negative if necessary,</ins> to bring that size up to =
zero."

* In section 3.6 on Fixed positioning: unlike the definition of fixed =
positioning in 2 and 2.1, this does not use the " fixed positioning =
containing block" term, and just directly talks about the viewport and =
the page area. It should use that term, and say that  viewport and the =
page area are the "fixed positioning containing block", unless some =
closer ancestor of the positioned element establishes another one (which =
css-contain can do). It could be worth accompanying that with a note =
that very few things establish one of those, so it's almost always the =
viewport/page area.

* In section 6, linkify "absolute positioning" in the first sentence

* This spec used to speak more of floats, and this latest revision =
doesn't anymore, except in section 2 and 5 to define the interaction =
between the float, display, and position properties, and in 3.5.1. to =
talk about resolving automatic insets. That's good, as this isn't a =
float spec. But then it feels like section 6.3 which gives a generic =
example about floats and clearance, without any interaction with =
positioning, is out of place, and should be removed as well.

=E2=80=94Florian=