W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > February 2018

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-scoping] Support for CSS namespaces

From: Slawomir Brzezinski via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 17:07:34 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-364767880-1518368853-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
I would like to risk a theory that the reason why it's so hard to see how much exactly there is support for this feature is because HTML & CSS is so easy to understand, that the vast majority of people who care about it are not really technical, let alone ever thought of engaging with standard-setting bodies. And as soon as someone becomes more technical, he is concerned much more with the advancement of state of the webApps development which, as everyone knows, has its own pressure for badly needed features.

Yet another reason has been put nicely in:
> https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/552#issuecomment-249038746 I understand the decision is unchangeable, but I still want to express my disappointment. We developers never have chance to experiment scoped style feature broadly

Last reason, I feel, is that it's simply hard to tell where the official place to keep contribute convincing arguments on this subject - many are being closed and opinions unwelcome - so the initiative dies of fear for any engagement being a reputation tarnish or at least a waste of time. After a few closed tickets (including this one at one point) [a wiki has been promised](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/270#issuecomment-234005414). I would really like to suggest - do whatever you like, but please 🙏 be wary that every time a such a move is proposed, or a thread is [closed without directing to the right place for arguments](https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/552#issuecomment-364606445), community get a signal that whatever energy they spent on the subject was a waste of time, and whatever arguments they produced are as good as in the bin.

Having that in mind, I allowed myself to try to consolidate particularly clear signs of user's community support for the feature that I found recently, which also seem to be backing the theory.

1. > Just have a look at the number of 👍s on https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/552#issuecomment-249038746
2. > https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/270#issuecomment-234105549:  How can authors express interest when most of them don't read specs and had never heard of this? 
3. > https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/270#issuecomment-231579064:  I cannot count in how many conferences lately I've been asked about scoped styles and components, and, quite embarrassingly, I had nothing to tell these authors.
4. > https://github.com/JSFoundation/standards/issues/47#issuecomment-234357802: We have received many requests over time to make it MORE EASY to override our base styles. ... I don't think we have ever had complaints about wanting the css to be more protecting from outside fiddling only less.
5. > (same author - response to using CSS vars as a solution) - https://github.com/JSFoundation/standards/issues/47#issuecomment-234375188: ...  We have never had any type of request for or attempt to shield our selves from outside css nor do we have any desire to do this its quite the opposite of what our users have expressed they wanted. Our concerns are completely about restricting our own scope to allow multiple themes or multiple frameworks that might use the same class.



-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by zlamma
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/270#issuecomment-364767880 using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 11 February 2018 17:07:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:24 UTC