Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-values] Retiring support for 3-valued positions (excluding background)

The Working Group just discussed `[css-values] Retiring support for 3-valued positions (excluding background)`.

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> topic: [css-values] Retiring support for 3-valued positions (excluding background)<br>
&lt;dael> github:<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I believe the radial gradient sntax for elipsis allows for just one...not, requires 2.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Nevermind.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: There's an issue from ericwilligers with some data about the incidence of 3 value syntax and checking if we want to go ahead with that.<br>
&lt;dael> ericwilligers: We made a spec change months ago, but I don't think any impl changed. Do we still support the spec change and are impl planning to change if so? I don't think one impl will change if the others aren't good to change.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: You're saying based on your data this is a safe change?<br>
&lt;dael> ericwilligers: Yes<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Current proposal is that for basic shapes, gradient, and prespective origin to remove support for 3 value positions is safe and we should do it.<br>
&lt;dael> ericwilligers: Original motive was so we can have % adjacent to  positions. That's the motivation since it was ambig. If you have a position followed by a length you wouldn't know what it was.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Yes, the issue was we wanted to use position in more places.<br>
&lt;fantasai> Like transforms<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: What are impl opinions? Sounds like ericwilligers/Blink is willing to adopt the change. I would have to check what that means for our (Microsoft) logic and if that would disrupt some of the uses we have of posiions. If this will hurt more then help. But I don't believe this will be the case so I don't object to going ahead with this.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: I'd like to hear from webkit and gecko.<br>
&lt;dael> smfr: I don't have a good feel for web compat risk so I won't know.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Is this something you can gather that will be more then the data posted by ericwilligers ? Or will you rely on ericwilligers ?<br>
&lt;dael> smfr: We don't have data gathering as fine-grain as ericwilligers 's data.<br>
&lt;dael> smfr: WE'd be willing to change as long as we don't find internal content that would break.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Gecko?<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: We'd be fine to change if other engines are willing.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: So ericwilligers it sounds like more or less everyone is willing to change. Is this something you're looking for in terms of time frame? Is it on your schedule?<br>
&lt;dael> ericwilligers: This is fine. I consider that intent to change. Before I put it before the community I wanted to check position, but everything is fine. I'll send out intent this week.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Anything more on this?<br>
&lt;dael> ericwilligers: No.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Doesn't sound we need a resolution because we have one to change. Now it's mostly an agreement of when to roll out the change. Thanks.<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 17:25:06 UTC