Sorry for the super lightweight comment. We should consider supporting these shorthands to help ease boilerplate in CSS.

Note also: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1282 Assuming that's adopted, do we really need to support both? It seems it makes the shorthands added in 1279 redundant?

Both appear to be closed in the same PR from fantasai from what I can see. Am I missing some conversation somewhere perhaps?

https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1282#issuecomment-298204874 says "Sorry; typo in commit message. :/" and then she reopened it.

Ah indeed sorry. Fantasai, dbaron do you know the current spec status for these two shorthand types?

I tend to think we should wait to implement these until the spec is in CR or there's some other declaration that they're stable. I'm not particularly familiar with the spec, but my impression is that they're probably not stable yet, and there isn't a strong reason to force them to stabilize quickly.

No worries, I just wanted to raise as I was asked to use them and realised we didn't support etc. Thanks

According to the following issue in the spec: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-logical-1/#issue-b84049ec The shorthans margin-block|inline, padding-block|inline, inset-block|inline, ... are ready for shippping. What's not ready yet is: "The logical keyword on shorthands, because the name of the keyword may change or it may be replaced by some other syntactic marker." But that's basically bug #1289155.