Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-shapes] ellipse with single <shape-radius>

The Working Group just discussed `[css-shapes] ellipse with single <shape-radius>`, and agreed to the following resolutions:

* `RESOLVED: Leave the spec as is, will not extend the spec to support the item raised in #2175`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: [css-shapes] ellipse with single &lt;shape-radius><br>
&lt;dael> github:<br>
&lt;Chris> q+<br>
&lt;dael> ericwilligers: I want to know, should we adopt what blink and wk have shipped or is this a bug? I've only just noticed so I started a use counter but we won't have data for months<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: What they have is a bit weird. It's more of an error correction as far as I can see.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: This is just an error case so I don't mind what we choose to do. Going with what's impl seems easiest.<br>
&lt;dael> ericwilligers: We could easily do what AmeliaBR suggested.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Does web content use this format?<br>
&lt;dael> ericwilligers: No idea.<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: Use counter was just installed.<br>
&lt;smfr> shapes are very little used in the wild<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: As AmeliaBR points out it's very unusual for us to not double in both axes. If there isn't web content dependency it makes more sense to do that. There's only one place we don't do that, background-size, and I consider that a mistake.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: ericwilligers when do you expect data? If this is still very early on and it's a bug level fix to back out by preference is someone who is going to be impl down the road would be to go siplier and not have that behavior.<br>
&lt;dael> ericwilligers: 12 weeks until data.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Okay. Wow.<br>
&lt;dael> ericwilligers: Maybe you can collect data server-side. I've never done that.<br>
&lt;dael> gregwhitworth: Can we resolve one way or another and if the data comes back and proves us wrong we can revert? I don't see a ton of use of Shapes in general.<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> Current spec is that single radius value is invalid, so it would be fine to add support for two values later.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: We can. We'll have to resolve today for the spec text. In ther presense of more evidence and patterns on the web we can rediscuss. For now I wanted to hear from blinke ngineers if you'd push back in terms of resolution.<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> The problem is Blink/WebKit supporting two values, but with a non-intuitive behavior.<br>
&lt;dael> smfr: I would be fine to treat this as a bug fix in webkit.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Blink?<br>
&lt;dael> ericwilligers: I don't see any benefits of the current approach. I wouldn't be able to change without data.<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> s/two values/one value/<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: We're talking about changes to spec. Impl changes would happen when youg ethte data. I'm asking if you object to resolve on the contrary to your current behavior. In the presense of more data we'll review again.<br>
&lt;dael> ericwilligers: No objection.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Sounds like 2 impl shipping are not objecting to keeping the spec as-is. Any other opinions/objections?<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> s/youg ethte/you get the/<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: Leave the spec as is, will not extend the spec to support the item raised in #2175<br>

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

Received on Wednesday, 17 January 2018 17:16:45 UTC