- From: Dael Jackson <daelcss@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 18:54:53 -0500
- To: www-style@w3.org
=========================================
These are the official CSSWG minutes.
Unless you're correcting the minutes,
Please respond by starting a new thread
with an appropriate subject line.
=========================================
EOY Publications
----------------
- RESOLVED: Publish CSS Text 3 as CR
- RESOLVED: New CRD for Images 3
- RESOLVED: New CRD for Grid L1
- RESOLVED: Republish a new CRD for Grid 2
- RESOLVED: Update Containment 1 REC
- RESOLVED: Accept the PR (
https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Fcss-contain-2%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fdrafts.csswg.org%2Fcss-contain-2%2F#cv-notes
)
and republish WD of containment 2
- RESOLVED: Move CSS Box Model 3 to CR
- RESOLVED: Publish a new CR for Backgrounds and Borders 3
2020 Snapshot
-------------
- RESOLVED: Move CSS Box Model to the top
- RESOLVED: Move images 3 to stable bucket
- RESOLVED: Moving sizing 3 to stable limited test
- RESOLVED: Color L4- move to stable needs testing
- RESOLVED: Add grid 2 to snapshot in same place as grid 1
- RESOLVED: Publish snapshot 2020 as a note
CSS Variables
-------------
- There has been further discussion about the possibilities for
issue #5624 (Higher level custom properties that control
multiple declarations) which are summarized in
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5624#issuecomment-746339609
Several of the proposals from the last meeting have been ruled
out and more details have been added to the proposal to de-sugar
@if into inline if() calls. Discussion will continue on GitHub
to look into if there are better ways to handle some difficult
cases.
CSS Font Loading
----------------
- RESOLVED: Change css-connected by css created bool where it cannot
be unset until removed from a document (Issue #5707:
Browsers disagree on what it means for a FontFace object
to be "CSS-connected", and what effect does it have)
- RESOLVED: Have document.fonts.add when called with CSS created
FontFace object throw an error (Issue #5707)
CSS Color Adjust
----------------
- RESOLVED: Close no change (Issue #5779: It's a bit unfortunate
that user stylesheets can't specify arbitrary colors)
- RESOLVED: Scrollbar colors should compute to auto in forced-colors
mode (Issue #5778: scrollbar-color should probably
compute to auto in forced-colors mode)
CSS Scroll Snap
---------------
- RESOLVED: Mark this property at-risk (Issue #4496: Snap area
trapping behavior of non scrollable elements)
==== FULL MINUTES BELOW ======
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2020Dec/0011.html
Present:
Rachel Andrew
Rossen Atanassov
Tab Atkins-Bittner
Christian Biesinger
Mike Bremford
Oriol Brufau
Emilio Cobos Alvarez
Elika Etemad
Brandon Ferrua
Simon Fraser
Megan Gardner
Chris Harrelson
Daniel Holbert
Dael Jackson
Brad Kemper
Daniel Libby
Chris Lilley
Peter Linss
Alison Maher
Tess O'Connor
François Remy
Morgan Reschenberg
Florian Rivoal
Devin Rousso
Jen Simmons
Alan Stearns
Miriam Suzanne
Lea Verou
Regrets:
Hui Jing Chen
Greg Whitworth
Scribe: dael
Rossen: I think we have a quorum and a full agenda
Rossen: Before we get going wanted to hear if there are any extra
items
florian: No changes, but a bunch of things within the EOY
publications that were requested late
Rossen: Yes, I intentionally didn't list because I know it would be
incomplete
Rossen: Any other things?
EOY Publications
================
Rossen: I think fantasai had a bunch. Let's start with the one that
are ready
CSS Text 3
----------
<fantasai> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2020OctDec/0099.html
fantasai: First is CSS Text 3
Rossen: Woohoo!
fantasai: At 0 issues for first time in 18 years
Rossen: If anyone has an objection to this one...^-^
Rossen: Let's follow the order. Objections to publish css text 3
as CR
RESOLVED: publish css text 3 as CR
<florian> ＼(^o^)／
fantasai: We sent 2/3 to CR already. Writing modes and text decor
require this. This is the last piece
chris: DoC, up to date changes, usual questions
fantasai: All in the email
florian: In terms of tests we're beyond what we need
fantasai: Should have been CR a long time ago, never got it together
chris: Who is going to raise the issue?
fantasai: I can file the transition request
CSS Images 3
------------
<fantasai> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2020OctDec/0103.html
fantasai: Next is css images L3
fantasai: Minor update
Rossen: That's a WD?
fantasai: CR
Rossen: What's the update?
fantasai: Several...4 substantive changes and one editorial change.
Have to publish this so all other specs can crosslink the
rename
florian: CRD?
fantasai: Yes, CRD for this.
Rossen: CRD or CR?
fantasai: CRD is easier so that
Rossen: Objections to new CRD for images 3?
RESOLVED: New CRD for images 3
CSS Grid 1 & 2
--------------
fantasai: CSS grid 1 and grid 2
fantasai: Handful of mainly editorial fixes
Rossen: Have 1 issue on grid for today. Any implications if we
resolve?
fantasai: I believe there are a few minor editorial tweaks for that
but they're included
Rossen: Okay, so can proceed without
Rossen: New CRD to Grid L1
Rossen: Objections?
RESOLVED: New CRD for Grid L1
fantasai: And grid 2
Rossen: Grid 2. Objections to republish a new CRD for Grid 2?
RESOLVED: Republish a new CRD for Grid 2
CSS Contain 1 & 2
-----------------
fantasai: florian contain?
florian: Would like contain 1 and contain 2. Start with 1
florian: contain 1 is rec, made a few editorial and 2 substantive
<fantasai> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2020OctDec/0104.html
florian: One is how we deal with computed values and the other is
re-write of contain sizing. Didn't change behavior but old
text was vague and short
florian: Resolved to do this, under p2020 we can make a new
publication without requesting approval but by making
annotations in spec we attend to do this. Done that
editorially and can push with approval
florian: This would be the first use of this process and plh waiting
on us to try
chris: This is the we can update the rec with new features or is
this something else?
florian: Not new feature, just a correction
Rossen: We just need a resolution?
florian: Yes. I think for mechanics a team member needs to do it,
but we need resolution
Rossen: Objections to update Containment 1 REC?
RESOLVED: Update Containment 1 REC
<chris> Okay, if that is ready I can prep it for publication on
Tuesday
florian: Just a REC. As before can do editorial. Substantive things
are not done but are notes we want to so it's just a rec
florian: Containment 2. Mostly resolved or editorial. I could almost
republish without a resolution but there's 1 item
<florian> https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Fcss-contain-2%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fdrafts.csswg.org%2Fcss-contain-2%2F#cv-notes
florian: This diff ^
florian: Discussed in a PR with several people but merged without
resolution. Seems innocuous, but if anyone wants to not
publish now is the time to say so
Rossen: Besides the note the addition is the new restriction for
visibility [reads]
Rossen: That's the essence of it?
florian: Yes, everything else is resolved or editorial
Rossen: Any objections to accepting the PR and republishing WD of
containment 2?
chrishtr: Can you repeat the change?
florian: You approved it, you merged the PR where it was approved.
There's a link to the diff in IRC
chrishtr: I approve that ^-^
RESOLVED: Accept the PR (
https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Fcss-contain-2%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fdrafts.csswg.org%2Fcss-contain-2%2F#cv-notes
)
and republish WD of containment 2
Rossen: Other requests?
fantasai: Yes
CSS Box Model 3
---------------
<fantasai> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2020OctDec/0106.html
fantasai: CSS box model L3
fantasai: Requesting CR transition. No new features from css 2.
Redefines padding and margin. Created so we had something
to refer to and add terms.
fantasai: Couple issues asking for more terms but I think can do in
CR. i18n completed review. I can't think reason why anyone
else would care about a module with nothing new in it.
fantasai: I suggest we transition to CR so we have stable reference
Rossen: I don't have issue with that. Question, what is benefit of
advancing this to CR?
fantasai: So we can get to REC
Rossen: If it doesn't add anything?
florian: Adds terminology
Rossen: Okay
chris: So that means it passes all tests in css 2?
fantasai: Yes
Rossen: Can we go directly to rec :)
fantasai: I don't think so
Rossen: Objections to moving css box model 3 to CR?
RESOLVED: Move css box model 3 to CR
Backgrounds and Borders 3
-------------------------
<fantasai> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2020OctDec/0107.html
fantasai: backgrounds and borders L3
fantasai: Very stable, few changes. But should be republished
fantasai: Summary of tests ^
Rossen: You said only editorial?
fantasai: 3 normative. First 2 have tests in wpt. 3rd is practically
unobservable. I'm sure someone can write a test but I
don't think will make a difference
Rossen: Objections to new CR for Backgrounds and Borders 3?
Rossen: And next time we can do CRD for it
RESOLVED: Publish a new CR for Backgrounds and Borders 3
2020 Snapshot
=============
github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4715#issuecomment-745856263
<fantasai> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2020OctDec/0105.html
fantasai: Last publication issue. florian and I reviewed 2020
snapshot. It is ready based on earlier discussion. We
think a few specs should be added/shifted though
fantasai: If it's okay I'd like to ask WG about possible changes.
<astearns> what about publishing 2020 snapshot as-is, and using your
list as input for 2021?
<florian> astearns publish with the discussed tweaks
fantasai: First is add css box module L3 to top tier since it has no
new functionality. Pretty stable
fantasai: Let's go one by one for resolutions
Rossen: Objections to moving box to the top?
RESOLVED: Move CSS Box Model to the top
fantasai: Next sizing 3
fantasai: ditto for images L3 since we cleaned that up
fantasai: It is now in sync with all the changes and pretty stable
fantasai: Not top level as top, but stable spec with limited testing
<fantasai> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-2020/
Rossen: Objections to moving images 3 to stable bucket?
RESOLVED: Move images 3 to stable bucket
Rossen: Moving sizing 3 to stable limited test
RESOLVED: Moving sizing 3 to stable limited test
fantasai: Next few less sure
fantasai: There was an issue against snapshot about transforms L2 to
rough interop bucket
chris: It has one impl
chris: Chrome has a bug on it
fantasai: Transforms 2 I thought multi implementations of 3d
transforms
chris: Yes, but single transform is only one impl
florian: Seems short for rough interop
fantasai: Could add and exclude those bits or save for next year
florian: Save it
<emilio> hmm, Gecko ships individual transform properties iirc
<gsnedders> WebKit has an impl of individual transform properties,
but not shipped in Safari
fantasai: Other was color adjust 1. Maybe save for next year as well
chris: Doesn't have any tests so claim of interop is hard to
substantiate. Is it only human testable?
fantasai: Shouldn't require human interaction to work. We can do it
next year
fantasai: I asked about color and font 4
chris: I responded.
Rossen: 2021
chris: Color 4 is stable. A few bits are not. Closed enough that I
expect to request CR in Jan or Feb. Stable and getting impl
fantasai: Color 4 in stable needs testing or save for 2021
chris: Let's say stable and needs testing.
chris: Same with fonts 4
Rossen: Color l4 move to stable needs testing
<gsnedders> do we not have tests for most of color l4 in WPT from
when impls implemented it?
RESOLVED: Color L4- move to stable needs testing
fantasai: Fonts 4 has a lot of open issues. Lot of impl happening
but spec text maybe not stable
chris: It is. I disagree on issue. 2 groups of long running issues.
generic font families and privacy issues. It's stable apart
from those bits.
florian: There are 76 open issues. Are they all what you said?
chris: At least 3/4 of them
Rossen: Seems a little early with number of issues
chris: I'll push a little but I'll fallback with graceful degradation
fantasai: I think we want to save that for next year
chris: Fine
fantasai: Propose publishing the snapshot 2020 as a note
chris: Grid 2?
fantasai: Oh, yes. Grid 1 is rough interop but needs more testing.
Grid 2 is a superset of 1.
fantasai: Part that's different in L2 has had no issues
fantasai: Might make sense to put L2 in the same bucket as 1, since
what's holding 2 back is the shared part
chris: Makes sense to me
Rossen: Publishing snapshot as a note. Objections?
fantasai: Didn't resolve on grid 2.
Rossen: I thought we were not going to move
fantasai: Add to snapshot in same place as grid 1
Rossen: Objections?
RESOLVED: Add grid 2 to snapshot in same place as grid 1
Rossen: And now, are we ready to push snapshot 2020 as a note?
RESOLVED: Publish snapshot 2020 as a note
chris: What state is it in and when to prepare for publication?
fantasai: Need to make resolution edits. Tomorrow, I'm guessing
Rossen: Anything else for publication?
fantasai: That's all I got
florian: I'm done
<jensimmons> Does that mean we get a CSS 2020 in 2020??
<astearns> just barely
CSS Variables
=============
Higher level custom properties that control multiple declarations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5624
leaverou: I didn't explicitly add this. We discussed last time and
didn't get resolution. Interesting discussion in issue and
off GH
<leaverou> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5624#issuecomment-746339609
leaverou: I summarized current state in ^ comment
leaverou: Summary: It looks like best course of action for block
conditionals...Can't use pseudo class, cause issues. If
if() cascades have to carry extra context and increases
too much complexity
leaverou: Best is impl if based on idea of de-sugaring to inline
if() calls and take into account properties in same rule.
Example in comment
leaverou: Raises some issues because certain values evaluate
differently depending on property. Hasn't come up that
much. Length in some MQs
leaverou: For example, ones we could come up with TabAtkins is
percentage, em values, rem, lh, rlh, currentColor.
leaverou: Problem. If it de-sugars to inline if calls and
conditional has relative values you may have cases where
part of rule evaluate to true and a part of false. Example
in comment.
leaverou: Agreed don't want partial applications. How to solve?
leaverou: Came up with defining how these relative values would be
evaluated. currentColor is as if in color and so on. New
inline conditional function to de-sugar @if
leaverou: Doesn't sound good, but couldn't come with better
leaverou: Addresses single conditional. CSS nesting has same partial
application problem. May have condition true for a rule
but not decedents.
leaverou: Might have var warning = on and a value for --warning on
parent and different value on the child
leaverou: You again have @if block applied partially
leaverou: Not sure if there's a way to address this. Couldn't come
up with anything but just discussed yesterday. Don't know
if there are ideas
fantasai: What do you do if content has if clause with a property
that effect evaluation. If on a em and evaluate em against
font size
leaverou: Can you put example in IRC?
<fantasai> @if (var(...) > 1em) { font-size: 35pt; }
leaverou: I see
leaverou: I'm not sure
leaverou: What would you suggest should happen?
leaverou: It's basically same as if you have inline if
Rossen: In interest of time, are we ready to resolve or should we
take it back to GH and continue there?
leaverou: I suppose we could go back to issue
Rossen: Let's do that. Let's continue discussing there. I was hoping
we were closer to resolution then we are. We'll come back
<leaverou> fantasai: 1em evaluated against font-size refers to the
*parent* font-size, so there's no conflict there. That's
*why* we'd evaluate ems against font-size, to avoid that
sort of thing
<fantasai> leaverou, I think it would be super unexpected if you
evaluated em against parent font-size, unless all of the
if clause lengths evaluate against the parent or something
<fantasai> leaverou, and in that case, seems a lot less useful?
<leaverou> fantasai: then the other options are: a) it evaluates
differently per property, so you have partial application
b) it evaluates against another property, e.g. width, so
you have a cycle in font-size.
<fantasai> leaverou, sure I recognize those are bad... but also, it
seems to me that the use cases would want to evaluate
against the element itself
<fantasai> leaverou, if that's not the case and evaluating the
parent font size is useful and expected, great, but if
not, then making it implementable isn't actually solving
the problem
<leaverou> fantasai: If you look at the use cases wrt WC, none of
them really seems to need ems. We just need to define
what happens when someone uses it that way. I agree that
parent is not that useful, but not sure the alternatives
are better. I'm hoping there might be a 4th alternative
we haven't considered, but I think the top priority would
be to make sure that either the entire @if is applied or
none of it, even if some values become less useful in
conditions.
CSS Font Loading
================
Browsers disagree on what it means for a FontFace object to be
"CSS-connected", and what effect does it have
--------------------------------------------------------------
github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5707
emilio: Browsers behave really oddly. Spec-wise spec says FontFace
object once the rule is removed you should be able to use
like it's not css-connected. A bit messy, browsers don't
impl to the letter. Simpler would be if FontFace created for
a css rule it is considered css-created. Then impl and spec
are simpler
emilio: Given behavior is all over the place and it's an edge case
it would be nice to simplify
TabAtkins: What impacts does it have on the connection between
properties if we just make a flag for css-created
emilio: afaict is chrome and ff don't allow change of descriptor of
FontFace object. Per spec it's 2-way mapping. I think FF and
Chrome don't impl. I don't see an issue with 2-way mapping
as is.
TabAtkins: If keeping the connection I'm unclear what the change is
emilio: Per spec once you remove the rule from the style sheet, even
though om wrapper for rule exists, the FontFace object is
disconnected from it. Means a lot of functions that need to
check for css connection need to also update stylesheets and
other expensive stuff
TabAtkins: So if you move a cssom FontFace object into another
stylesheet in another document so it shows in a different
FontFace set would that make 1 more object
emilio: afaict you can't do that. cssom method is strings so you
need to stringify
TabAtkins: Okay. If purely when an om rule is created it gets a
corresponding object and that's a permanent connection
I'm okay with that. Simplification. Fine with me
emilio: I think so too
Rossen: Other opinions?
Rossen: Summary?
emilio: Proposed: Change css-connected by css created bool where it
cannot be unset until removed from a document
Rossen: Objections?
RESOLVED: Change css-connected by css created bool where it cannot
be unset until removed from a document
emilio: Another issue in this. That was changing definition. Now
what happens to document.fonts.add with that object
emilio: It's in the same issue, but needs different resolution
emilio: It's when it's from a rule created in another document. I
think blink does nothing. Spec says throw which is what
gecko does. Doesn't match WK or blink. Happy to use either,
both are reasonable.
emilio: It does nothing if called on same document which is odd. I
think easiest is follow blink
TabAtkins: Meaning it doesn't get added to set?
emilio: Right
TabAtkins: No opinion on throw or ignore. Whichever
emilio: I don't care either. Throw to do nothing is a bit easier for
use. Doing nothing to throwing may break. No strong opinion.
Whatever gets faster interop
TabAtkins: Seems rare to do this. I suspect we could move to throw
and I would prefer because it's an error. Do we have an
issue to fix in chrome?
emilio: I'm okay change to throw
TabAtkins: I'll try that and talk to Rune. If not we'll come back
Rossen: With my TAG hat I'd argue strongly for throwing. There's a
pretty clear guidance on this pattern. Should do most
observable. Let's not have silent error. I agree with
proposal
Rossen: Objections?
RESOLVED: Have document.fonts.add when called with CSS created
FontFace object throw an error
CSS Color Adjust
================
It's a bit unfortunate that user stylesheets can't specify arbitrary
colors
--------------------------------------------------------------------
github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5779
emilio: I don't think it's huge. Came up when reviewing changes to
forced colors. It's a bit unfortunate user colors stop
working
emilio: I don't have a super great use case for user stylesheets
spec arbitrary colors. I don't think it's huge but wanted to
raise because it's weird.
fremy: I think we did consider it. You can spec any color and say
forced color adjust none
emilio: Yeah
fremy: You want to do it anyway to disable backplate. You can say
anything in stylesheet.
<fantasai> or stick to the forced colors palette
emilio: Would need to disable for everything but yeah. It's a
different behavior. Not a huge issue. Can disable
forced-colors all together or change system colors to match
what you want
Rossen: Doesn't sound like there's anything to resolve
emilio: Resolve no change
Rossen: Objections?
RESOLVED: Close no change
scrollbar-color should probably compute to auto in forced-colors mode
---------------------------------------------------------------------
github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5778
emilio: This was the case I could think of because we don't have
system color for scrollbars. Probably should force to auto
and have system scrollbar colors to show
<fremy> sounds reasonable to me
Rossen: Sounds sensible. Other opinions?
Rossen: Proposal: Scrollbar colors should compute to auto in
forced-colors mode
RESOLVED: Scrollbar colors should compute to auto in forced-colors
mode
CSS Scroll Snap
===============
Snap area trapping behavior of non scrollable elements
------------------------------------------------------
github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4496
fantasai: Added because we had original set up scroll-snap-type
where if it's non-initial it traps snaps. If elements
inside asking for snap position we ignore. Scroll
containers have to trap. Added additional behavior for
scroll-snap-type so if someone wants to say in this area
ignore a snap position they could do so
fantasai: Seems this is difficult to impl for Blink. Do we want to
not have the behavior? Would mean only way to prevent
contents from having snap behavior is put in a scroll
container
Rossen: It's a hack. The hack will work. People will hate the hack.
It'll probably end up in css hacks books.
Rossen: Is it really that difficult that we should go to that extent.
<fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4496#issuecomment-706333521
fantasai: Here's comment from impl ^
fantasai: I'm not aware of any requests for the behavior
Rossen: non-Blink implementor with opinion?
smfr: My hunch is it doesn't make sense for non-scrollable things to
trap snapping
fantasai: Within that element we don't track snap position
Rossen: Image in a carousel scenario?
fantasai: No. a section and in that section there's properties
setting snap points, you can turn that off. You can say
this element ignore the snap positions inside. We can just
not have that behavior and see if someone complaints
Rossen: In interest of time we can resolve here. If there are no
strong arguments for keeping it I'm fine with that
smfr: Looked at WK and would be easy to impl
Rossen: Argument for reverting doesn't seem to be a problem for WK
Rossen: What if we keep issue open and when we get to actual impl
and get experience I think that's when we come back and
decide?
fantasai: Mark at-risk?
Rossen: Sensible
Rossen: Objections?
RESOLVED: Mark this property at-risk
End of Year
===========
Rossen: We're at the end of the call.
Rossen: I'd like to use the last few seconds for the yearly summary
Rossen: Have resolved and made 52 publishings. 4 notes, 31 wd, 16 cr
and 1 REC
Rossen: Over 192 resolutions
Rossen: Crazy year, very busy. I want to thank all the members for
participating, editors for working, staff for helping us,
dael for scribing, and everyone for putting up with what
2020 brought us. WG showed up strong.
Rossen: Thank you everyone for going through this together and let's
hope for a better 2021
[lots of cheering]
Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2020 23:55:36 UTC