Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-align] Rename `auto` to `legacy` for `justify-items`

The CSS Working Group just discussed ``Rename `auto` to `legacy` for `justify-items` Pending this resolution we could go to CR``, and agreed to the following resolutions:

* `RESOLVED: rename auto to legacy.`
* `RESOLVED: Move CSS Alignment to CR with the added legacy value defined as at-risk. The action of starting the CR process will start in 2 weeks (May 27) unless we heard elsewise.`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: Rename `auto` to `legacy` for `justify-items` Pending this resolution we could go to CR<br>
&lt;dael> Github topic:<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: we've got different behavior on different browsers (still on previous issue).<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Alignment spec has a bunch of keyword magic with justify-items. It sets default value of justify self for any children. We tried to figure out how to incorporate center tag and did it with a special set of keywords called legacy with an intial value of auto. All auto does is this magic, but we could just uselegacy keword by itself<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Proposal is rename auto to legacy so all it does is if you have legacy keyword on parent it pulls the parent alignment, else does normal thing.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Alternate is drop t his thing.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: We haven't gotten any significant comments. Apperently style stuff is implin  chrome. Not sure how people are imple center and align attributes in HTML.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: If impl don't want to implement center and align attributes through this we should drop. If we want to keep it we recommend the rename.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Did that make sense or do we need more explination?<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: Your explination was great.  In ourimpl we handle center a little magic. Rename would be okay. Trying to kill itwould be better.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: I'm in favor of mostly everything you proposed.<br>
&lt;zcorpan> is the magic explained in html<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Reason to keep it would be i f we want to standardize. Alternative would be add yet another property to control magic.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: We can't unimplement center tag.<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Benefit of another alignment property is we can make it actually inherit. It might be better structurally.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: But then you have a weird thing where you have to figure out, I inheritied this, alignment is this, what wins?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: We can't resolve with cascade.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Incorperating it has the benefit that the cascade is understandable.<br>
&lt;dbaron> For what it's worth, I'd probably have an opinion on this if I had ten minutes to think about it...<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: There' definitely problems either way, I agree.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I'm happy to defer<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: reoslve on rename<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: Any objections on renaming auto to legacy?<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: rename auto to legacy.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: Was that the only hting keeping us from CR on alignment?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Yes...I think we should add legacy to at-risk list. All the issues are closed. I would like to initiate transition.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: That would be great.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: While we process that we can look at dropping. If it's at-risk we can drop later.<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: I'll try and start asking this: Is there someone other then the editor that has read the draft and thinks it's ready?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: We've had a lot of comments from Igalia &amp; Matt. There have been detailed reviews of the draft. I think it has been impl...this was the reference spec of grid. I think it's gotten decent amount of review.<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: There's bunches not related to grid and I worry those aren't ready.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I think they're striaght forward. We kept asking for review and no one has so TabAtkins and I have done two line by line reviews of the spec.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: If someone wants to review the spec I'm happy to delay 2 weeks, but if it'll be more no response and no review it's not useful.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I've been asking for review for years.<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: I submitted comments a year or two ago.<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: I wouldlike the bar for CR to involve someone other then the editors say they think it's ready.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I totally agree with that.<br>
&lt;astearns> we're meant to show wide review before CR<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: I can prob look, but not this week.<br>
&lt;rachelandrew> Does this review need to be from an Implementor? I've spent a lot of time reading it, I'd be happy to do a more formal review.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: I agree dbaron. We can action the WG to review Alignment spec in the following two weeks. I also sympathize with fantasai saying she has asked for review. Let's use the resolution forcing function. Would you agree two weeks is enough before we call for resolution? Or three?<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: 2 is fine.<br>
&lt;astearns> rachelandrew: does not have to be from an implementor - your formal review would be great<br>
&lt;fantasai> gsnedders, we don't want to advance specs to CR that nobody cares about<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: prop: Move CSS Alignment to CR with the added legacy value defined as at-risk. The action of starting the CR process will start in 2 weeks unless we heard elsewise.<br>
&lt;fantasai> gsnedders, that's a recipe for bad news<br>
&lt;dael> Florian: Have we asked for horizontal review? We could bundle the two.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: Let's see. Who do we need for horizontal review? a11y folks.<br>
&lt;rachelandrew> ok, I have some very long airplane flights in the next 2 weeks :D<br>
&lt;dael> ChrisL: i18n, privacy, security<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I think for privacy &amp; security we should send them a note saying we don't think there's anything that would effect you, but feel free to read the spec.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: That's good.<br>
&lt;dael> Florian: Is 2 weeks short for horizontal?<br>
&lt;dael> ChrisL: It is. i18n watnts 4 weeks.<br>
&lt;dael> ChrisL: I think for psecs we're prepping for CR we should in the future schedule earlier.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I don't think we'll g et feedback on horizontal review. Maybe generalthis could b e better written.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: i18n wanted flow relative directions which is what we did. We have self-start vs start so there's all kinds of writing mode control. a11y issues are ones that effect everything.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: I think we should stick to 2 weeks. IF someone starts screaming we can be flexible.<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: Move CSS Alignment to CR with the added legacy value defined as at-risk. The action of starting the CR process will start in 2 weeks (May 27) unless we heard elsewise.<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/everything/everyone, e.g. if stuff overflows it could be bad/<br>

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

Received on Wednesday, 10 May 2017 16:48:25 UTC