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

Re: [csswg-drafts] [cssom-1] Replace steps of set a CSS declaration with some constraints

From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 16:43:21 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-405997927-1531932200-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The Working Group just discussed `Replace steps of set a CSS declaration with some constraints`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: havethe PR https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/2924 as the start of a set of constraints with gecko algorithm as an example in a note`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: Replace steps of set a CSS declaration with some constraints<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/2924<br>
&lt;dael> ??: Issue is that the latest resolution on how set property behaved: it always appends to end of declaration so it's sane with logical prop it's a nightmare of webcompat and perf for Gecko and Blink<br>
&lt;fantasai> dbaron, discussion at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1246<br>
&lt;dael> ??: WE turned it off in Gecko and backed out in block. xidorn had this proposal to let a se t of prop in a logicial group and in a UA dependent way that's in same logicial group it need to appear after so setProperty behaves correct<br>
&lt;rego> s/??/emilio<br>
&lt;dbaron> s/in block/in Blink/<br>
&lt;dael> emilio: I think frremy...what xidorn did in gecko which we haven't landed is that if you get to the case where a prop and there's another from the group that defers we append the new prop<br>
&lt;dael> emilio: xidorn proposes to define in terms of constraints which I'm okay, but prefer define properly. Onlyr eason not to do is proposal from frremy. We need to decide if we're fine resolving like this or if fine to say it's constaints UA can do what they want or define algo in spec<br>
&lt;dael> frremy: From what I recal my proposal was pretty in line with constaints. I'm fine with them as defined. Good to have UA experiment. If it's fine we can refine further. Fine to go with xidorn proposal for now. It makes a lot of sense.<br>
&lt;dael> emilio: Okay<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: I agree emilio it's good to have things properly defined once we have impl experience and can determine the constraints. Happy starting with the PR and adding<br>
&lt;dael> emilio: People fine with gecko algo as an example?<br>
&lt;dael> florian: SOunds okay<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: As a note?<br>
&lt;dael> emilio: Pretty much<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> present +<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Objections to having the PR https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/2924 as the start of a set of constraints with gecko algo as an exmplae in a note?<br>
&lt;dael> frremy: Sounds good<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: havethe PR https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/2924 as the start of a set of constraints with gecko algorithm as an example in a note<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Anything else on this?<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/2924#issuecomment-405997927 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2018 16:43:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 18 July 2018 16:43:24 UTC