Re: [csswg-drafts] Review HTML fieldset/legend spec

The CSS Working Group just discussed `Review HTML fieldset/legend spec`.

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: Review HTML fieldset/legend spec<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3094<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Looks like fantasai mats and florian have commented in issue.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: If you were not aware, please take a look at the issue<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: If you have anything to contibute please do.<br>
&lt;tantek> wow long comments are loooooooong<br>
&lt;dael> fremy: I didn't write anything on the issue and I haven't seen fantasai comments. It's an amazing document. One concern is in Edge webkit-appearance is cosmetic. We only support none. I'm concerned to see it overriding display and other essential properties to CSS.<br>
&lt;dael> fremy: If this is how it works in blink maybe, but I get this impression this is not a thing it does. If this is not how it works in blink I would not make it this way. I have not had a chance to verify<br>
&lt;tantek> q?<br>
&lt;dael> florian: You can I need to be involved in paralel conversaiton. There's a whatwg standardization of the webkit property where they're specing half of it. They're not super happy with out proposal so we should be involved<br>
&lt;dael> chrishtr: The blink engineers are opposed to adding more functionality to prefix properties.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Good to know, I agree<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: I also agree<br>
&lt;Rossen_> +1<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/should be involved/should talk/<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: I don't think should be adding anything to appearance. Adding functionality feels like pointing someone to a giant mess.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Total agreement, but there are 2 groups of people not talking. Our side saying this and another group saying we shoulds tandardize on webkit-appearance<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Upcoming F2F event coming up...good thing to talk about there. I propose we keep looking and see if we can reach agreement at TPAC<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: sgtm<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Add to wiki agenda?<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Def. We'll see if we can pull people from whatwg<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Other thing I noticed is there is a lot being discussed. Threading is hard to follow. If anything can split to its own issue please do<br>
&lt;dael> florian: It's tricky. It's a giant spec. Having 25 issues sep is different then one list where everything is bad and maybe we should reconsider.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Just pointing out as we find separate issues to solve we should split<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: Another point here: interop is bad and this spec is doing a lot to improve it. SHouldn't ask for it to be thrown out. WE should question what is not needed for interop, but a bunch of this is needed given web compat<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Taking as dependencies as things not defined and assuming they work as they do in chrome. BUt they're not defined to work that way. Until solve dependencies not clear the spec works<br>
&lt;tantek> agreed with specing backcompat interop<br>
&lt;dael> fremy: Let's put this on TPAC agenda where we can work together and once everyone has read the spec.<br>
&lt;tantek> but disagreed with extending aappearance OR -webkit-appearance<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I think 2 things to add. This fieldset stuff but also appearance property.<br>
&lt;tantek> also disagreed with methodology of "just spec what Chrome does"<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: For appearance property good to summerize the principles as to what we'll take. Also making clear position on prefix properties. Then go from there<br>
&lt;tantek> can we counterpropose deprecating FIELDSET and LEGEND?<br>
&lt;fantasai> tantek, no<br>
&lt;dael> florian: And also people sync internally. Mozilla here and mozilla in compat spec seem to be different to take one example. Talking internally would be nice<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Maybe TPAC is the place for that<br>
&lt;tantek> they are too much trouble for authors to bother trying to use in any compat / interop way<br>
&lt;fantasai> tantek, they're perfectly fine HTML elements, we just need to be able to a) make them not magic b) ideally define the magic so it can be controlled and/or reused<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Good for now? This will all go in the issue. Please continue there before TPAC.<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3094#issuecomment-420707717 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2018 16:13:50 UTC