Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-display][css-pseudo] Interaction of display:contents and ::first-line

The Working Group just discussed `Interaction of 'display: contents' and ::first-line`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: defer to css-pseudo-4 to address as part of more rigorously defining ::first-line cascading/inheritance.`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: Interaction of 'display: contents' and ::first-line<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1310<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Proposal is defer to pseudo spec<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: I support it<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: Flip is display contents is new and ::first-line has been around since css 1<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: Then it's easier to spec in first-line<br>
&lt;rachelandrew> re previous issue ED of multicol says "A multi-column container establishes a new block formatting context, as per CSS 2.1 section 9.4.1."<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: I don't htink that's true. I proposed in the past removing first-line and first-letter...they're very complex<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Part of the issue is inheritence and cascade of first-line and that's underspec. I think solving here means we have to solve in pseudo first so it makes sense to solve together.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Either way both features are impl. It's a question of which spec do we tackle in.<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: Impl with scare quotes. I'd be interested in seeing any interop tests<br>
&lt;Rossen> rachelandrew, right, the BFC part is understood, the inner display value is what will be interesting to define... since it's not really a flow-root<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: It's impl for other things, jsut not this combo of things<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Regardless of history, fantasai point there's a dependency means we can push it there or be stuck. We can't just define in display. So I support the proposal<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: Objections to defer to css-pseudo-4 to address as part of more rigorously defining ::first-line cascading/inheritance.<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: Which spec depends on which?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Defining interaction of display contents and first-line is both. display-contents has no open issues. first-line has "someone please define inheritence" and defining how they combine requires that.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Proposal is defer the interaction definition to pseudo spec so that it can hold until inheritence is defined better<br>
&lt;rachelandrew> there's no other mention - was trying to find the issue florian mentioned - which I think is this one https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/1588<br>
&lt;Rossen> who is talking?<br>
&lt;dael> emilio: I would say claim first-line and display:contents is [missed] I think we need to define first-line earlier because if people want features that mess with layout modal<br>
&lt;dael> emilio: I think if we want to start definiting more complex features that mess with layout modal we should define these things earlier rather then later.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: I sympathize. Only ocunter argument is that for the more complex features/layout systems it's not uncommon that we would push other horizontal features to the specific areas so that they define their own extension rather then trying to lump into one spec.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: In this case I'm inclined to push complexity of display:contents to ::first-line into pseudo because it will take longer to define and no reason to hold back display:contents for first-line<br>
&lt;dael> emilio: Agree, but shouldn't defer defining infinitely<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: Agree. If you have time to work on that people would support it<br>
&lt;dael> emilio: Fair enough<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: Other opinions about this? If not we can try and resolve<br>
&lt;emilio> myles: sorry about that, hopefully it's better now?<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: Only other thing...to make interaction a CR blocker. I'm fine witht he proposal if we define that defining it blocks CR<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Not okay<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: Why is that the case?<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: If you've impl ::first-line then the interaction is a new thing introduced by this spec and therefore must be defined or it's an outstanding issue which we're not to have when enter CR<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Assuming that other then display:content ::first-line was well defined I'd agree. But it's not so I don't.<br>
&lt;fantasai> +1 to florian<br>
&lt;dael> emilio: Yeah I think the...<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: Weither or not it's well defined adding another thing makes it worse. We have to force resolution<br>
&lt;emilio> I think the undefinedness is on ::first-line<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: It'll be forced when trying to move pseudo to CR. It's on the to do list.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: tantek your point is on the record. We're not close to CR. Once we're close we'll try and untangle<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: I'm worried about another semi-broken feature but I accept your approach<br>
&lt;fantasai> tantek, it's already introduced, so putting it in CR is just doing our best to document reality<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: Objections?<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: defer to css-pseudo-4 to address as part of more rigorously defining ::first-line cascading/inheritance.<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1310#issuecomment-391418362 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2018 16:43:59 UTC