- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 07:33:18 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The Working Group just discussed `List of features for shipping`, and agreed to the following resolutions: * `RESOLVED: Merge this text in after editorial changes` * `RESOLVED: proceed with publishing snapshot as-is including the open issues` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <dael> Topic: List of features for shipping<br> <dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2388<br> <plinss> : present+ Peter Linss, Invited Expert<br> <dael> florian: The snapshot has a section with the general policy of the WG. WE don't do vendor prefixes but do draft maturity. The WG can make exceptions based on market pressure. WE don't list what the exceptions are. fantasai created proposed text and a list of examples.<br> <dael> dbaron: One of my concerns about the list is over the past 15 years we've cleared various features at various times that are scattered across minutes. The mor complete the list is the more serious it is to have them listed.<br> <dael> fantasai: We should get to the point where the list is comprehensive. If there are things not on the list we should add them.<br> <dael> florian: It's a not so repub isn't hard.<br> <astearns> section under discussion: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-2018/#experimental<br> <dael> dbaron: WE may find two or three missing over the course of a month.<br> <dael> fantasai: That's okay.<br> <dael> florian: Review the list?<br> <dael> fantasai: I think my list was things we've already cleared. There's stuff we didn't clear buy shipped.<br> <dael> florian: [reads list]<br> <dael> florian: Chris suggested we add conic gradient<br> <dael> florian: Focus-within?<br> <dael> fantasai: I don't think explicitly cleared, but it's shipping.<br> <dael> florian: That's the list. fantasai has an edit proposed. If everyone is happy we'll merge.<br> <dael> dbaron: Is this the edit with similar text?<br> <dael> fantasai: Yeah, we have to clean that up.<br> <dael> dbaron: I'm fine with merging after the duplication is sorted out.<br> <dael> florian: Are we okay resolving to merge this after editorial improvements?<br> <dael> astearns: And going forward as we approve things edit this in.<br> <dael> fantasai: And if there's something that needs to be added to the list let us know.<br> <dael> dbaron: There's things that should be on the list but I couldn't find minutes.<br> <dael> fantasai: Just list and say "I think we cleared but I couldn't find miuntes"<br> <dael> dbaron: Some were over 10 years ago.<br> <dael> fantasai: Put them in and we'll find them or re-resolve<br> <dael> Rossen: Other suggestions?<br> <dael> Rossen: Objections?<br> <dael> RESOLVED: Merge this text in after editorial changes<br> <dael> florian: There are 4 open issues. Link in the agenda. Do we want to publish before dealing with them?<br> <dael> florian: One is an issue in bikeshed, the indexes are slightly wrong, I wouldn't block on that. Document conformance should be added from 2.1, that should happen. But do we want to block on it?<br> <dael> florian: Last is sort of related, issue #1139. NOthing lists what the fields in the propdef table means. Snapshot could be that.<br> <dael> ??: I think that's the right place.<br> <dael> florian: It's a new snapshot because it's a new year.<br> <dael> Rossen: Sure. It will be more beneficial to get the snapshot out.<br> <dael> Rossen: Was issue should we block on those?<br> <dael> florian: yes<br> <dael> Rossen: Obj to proceed with publishing snapshot as-is including the open issues?<br> <dael> RESOLVED: proceed with publishing snapshot as-is including the open issues<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2388#issuecomment-380003405 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2018 07:34:00 UTC