Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-device-adapt] Should Device Adaptation include a normative definition of <meta> viewport?

The Working Group just discussed `Should Device Adaptation include a normative definition of <meta> viewport?`, and agreed to the following resolutions:

* `RESOLVED: Spec the <meta> viewport in CSSOM VIew`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: Should Device Adaptation include a normative definition of &lt;meta> viewport?<br>
&lt;dael> github:<br>
&lt;dael> florian: The spec has a description of &lt;meta. described in terms of the rest of the spec. People want a normative definition. Problem is the rest of the spec is not getting adoption. Do we expect that to be fixed or do we think this spec will die because it has some issues and gets pushback. If we think it'll never be adopted defining &lt;meta> in terms of it is not useful.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: That's the question.<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: one way to look at this is if you suppose there is a spec fo meta viewport and then you propose @viewport that spec would have to define how meta-viewport works on top of it. You can looka t one possible answer is you should do both. device adapatation should define it in terms of how it works that's compat with the existing unwritten and that should be written.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: device adaptation was supposed to be written that way.<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: And that's one theory of how things could work.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: So if we go by that it says there should be another spec and then device adapatation should continue existing as-is. IF we start from now rather then the past?<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: Pretty much, I think.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I think I can buy that.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Who should write that? It's about layout so maybe CSS, but it's meta HTML so perhaps HTML. Which WG should own this.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: If it's us CSSOM VIew was suggested. Is it?<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: CSSOM VIew doesn't have a current editor.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: There was a suggestion about an incubation doc.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Incubation is supposed to be things we're not sure about. Spec needs to be written properly, but there's no wonder if people will buy into the idea.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: I don't know how much there is about meta viewport. COuld it stand in its own module? Or better in CSSOM View?<br>
&lt;dael> florian: MOstly a who will edit question. If it's same person as CSSOM VIew easier together. If not, seperate.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Rossen it's an Edge person who brough tthis up COuld they edit it into CSSOM VIew?<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: Sure, we can edit it in.  I'll talk to MaRakow or fremy.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Obj to having this definition edited into css om view?<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I don't know if we need to resolve on spec if we find a person who wants to do it they can pick where it should go, cssom or seperate.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: The people I mentioned won't take over cssom, but they can do a PR. I didn't intend to indicate they would take cssom view<br>
&lt;bradk> Why not just add the meta spec to the device adaptation spec?<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: And a PR might be less work then spinning up a new module.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: bradk asked [reads] it is in the device adapatation spec.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: I guess the suggestion is just have the normative deifnition there.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Google pushed back saying they don't want the entire spec to exist so putting things in there looks like an invitation to gut the rest and leave only that which brings us back to what dbaron suggested where they can co-exist.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: I think there's value in seperating. It makes sense to put it in CSSOM view. That specs known things.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: This fits in that bucket.<br>
&lt;bradk> I don’t object<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: Spec the &lt;meta> viewport in CSSOM VIew<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Thanks everyone. We are not meeting next week, we will meet Jan 3rd.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Have a good break!<br>
&lt;bradk> Happy holidays!<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: One more thing, I want to thank the WG for the very productive 2017. We did quite a bit of work and a whole bunch of specs are getting ready to REC and I'm looking forward to 2018. Thank you everyone for a super awesome year and happy olidays.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: THanks for awesome chairing<br>

GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2017 18:02:09 UTC