W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > January 2016

FW: [css-flexbox] Transition Request, CSS Flexible Box Layout Level 1 to CR (updated)

From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 12:13:24 +0000
To: TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D2B00A67.2F245%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
All,

The CSSWG has requested that CSS Flexbox layout level 1 be transitioned to
CR. 

This may provide some opportunities for semantic alignment with CSS not
previously available, or we may not need it. Either way I thought it would
be of interest.

Nigel


On 31/12/2015 00:07, "fantasai" wrote:

>Hello PLH,
>
>This is a transition request for CSS Flexible Box Layout Level 1 to
>Candidate Recommendation.
>
>* Document title, URIs, and estimated publication date
>- CSS Flexible Box Layout Module Level 1
>- ED at http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-flexbox-1/

>- The Tuesday or Thursday after a successful transition meeting (or
>decision)
>
>* The document Abstract and Status sections
>http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-flexbox-1/#abstract

>http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-flexbox-1/#status

>
>* Decision to request transition
>RESOLVED: Take Flexbox to CR
>https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Dec/0233.html

>
>* Changes
>See http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-flexbox-1/#changes

>
>* Requirements satisfied
>No requirements document.
>
>* Dependencies met (or not)
>- CSS2.1 - REC
>- CSS Fragmentation - CR
>- CSS Cascade - CR
>- CSS Images - CR
>- CSS Writing Modes - CR
>- CSS Values - CR
>- CSS Sizing - WD (mainly for terminology)
>
>Non-dependent normative references:
>- CSS Display - WD (point at interaction with new 'display' values
>therein)
>- CSS Multicol - CR (define non-interaction with multicol properties)
>- CSS UI - CR (define interaction with UI's box-sizing)
>
>* Wide Review
>The document went through a (2005 process) Last Call in 2012,
>and then transitioned to CR. It was returned to LC in 2014 to
>process further comments due from implementation experience
>(per 2005 process rules), and cycled through three additional
>LC drafts, procuring numerous comments, both on the changes
>themselves and also on additional problems found. These are
>documented in the corresponding Dispositions of Comments.
>The rate of substantive comments has declined over the last
>year, resulting in enough stability to zero out the open
>issues and request a transition back to CR.
>   http://drafts.csswg.org/css-flexbox-1/issues-cr-2012

>   http://drafts.csswg.org/css-flexbox-1/issues-lc-20140325

>   http://drafts.csswg.org/css-flexbox-1/issues-lc-20140925

>   http://drafts.csswg.org/css-flexbox-1/issues-lc-20150514

>
>* Issues addressed
>See above
>
>* Formal Objections
>None, but see 
>https://drafts.csswg.org/css-flexbox/issues-lc-20150514#issue-11

>The CSSWG was unable to come to a consensus (a first in over a decade,
>IIRC),
>and so we followed Ralph Swick's advice to record both behaviors as
>allowed,
>with the hope that implementations will eventually converge and the spec
>updated to match.
>
>* Implementation
>Aside from pagination, which is reported to be pretty poor, Flexbox is
>thoroughly implemented in Gecko, Blink & Webkit, Trident/Edge, and even
>Presto. Bugfixes are ongoing, as implementations are not yet perfectly
>compliant.
>
>A test suite is in development and currently has 660 tests written by
>a variety of contributors. Missing tests will be added and implementations
>further tested during the CR period.
>
>* Patent disclosures
>(none)
>http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/32061/status

>
>~fantasai
>
>

Received on Monday, 4 January 2016 12:13:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 5 October 2017 18:24:26 UTC