- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 16:30:53 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed ``Rename `text-decoration-thickness` to `text-decoration-weight`?``, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: No change to the current spec, use thickness` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <dael> Topic: Rename `text-decoration-thickness` to `text-decoration-weight`?<br> <dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4138<br> <dael> Rossen_: Last week discussion narrowed to 2 choices.<br> <dael> Rossen_: Evenly distributed preference. More people voting thickness.<br> <dael> Rossen_: Are we ready to resolve on thickness?<br> <fantasai> largely due to the "no change from impl" principle<br> <dael> bradk: What are the 2?<br> <dael> rachelandrew: I opened this and didn't intend to re-open thickness vs width. My intention was to say is weight a good solution. I think it's great and makes sense to lots of people. Opposite is that text-decoration0weight doesn't match values. Seems like you guys disregarded weight.<br> <dael> rachelandrew: I'd rather keep thickness<br> <fantasai> s/rachelandrew/jensimmons/<br> <fantasai> s/rachelandrew/jensimmons/<br> <dael> rachelandrew /j jensimmons<br> <dael> Rossen_: Did rule out weight. Slight preference, but wanted majority of group to resolve on not change. That way FF can move forward and we can close the issue<br> <dael> jensimmons: Does look straw poll. Looks to me there was a definite preference for thickness, lots that didn't care. Some people preferred width.<br> <dael> fantasai: A number were due to not wanting a change. It wasn't so much preference as not change things<br> <dael> bradk: width is not under consideration?<br> <dael> Rossen_: Width was last week. We can take a straw poll again.<br> <fantasai> s/preference/preference for thickness/<br> <dael> Rossen_: Higher level discussion. We did rule out weight. Going to original issue it was rename thickness to weight and we can say no. In the middle of that width was brought up with some preference for width. Fine spending a few minutes about rename to width. Or just close original issue no change<br> <florian> abstain<br> <dael> Rossen_: Anyone want to straw poll?<br> <florian> s/c) weight/c) width/<br> <dael> bradk: I'd like width so consistent with other border thicknesses. I think it's unnec. congnative burden to remember which is which<br> <dael> myles: You're right about the burden. But also burden in calling it something unrelated to what it does. Web seatch to change underline the results say thickness. So people are clearly using that.<br> <dael> bradk: Boat has sailed. If we change to thickness we shuld have border-thickness and outline-thickness<br> <dael> myles: We've got 1 shipping impl and 1 non-shipping<br> <dael> bradk: I meant borders have thickness not width<br> <dael> jensimmons: Agree with myles . At the heart some people come at this from css prospective and they're looking for internal consistency and things should match. On the other hand there are folks who are looking at the words for what they are and consistency beyond CSS and intuitive for learning CSS. And they say it's okay because it makes sense in the larger world<br> <chris> Agree with myles and jen<br> <dael> jensimmons: Every time I see width I think it means the length of the line not the thickness. I totally understand where both prospectives come from. I think we don't share same way of looking at things.<br> <fantasai> border-width, outline-width, stroke-width<br> <dael> bradk: To me there's so many terms an author has to learn that having 2 terms for same concept is confusing and makes it harder to learn. New user that learned thickness of a border is border-width or an older user with that ingrained it's harder to remember text-decoration is thickness for the same concept of how wide the line stroke is.<br> <dael> Rossen_: I don't want to re-do the entire convo. I want us to resolve what is the stroke called. We ruled out weight. I see IRC advocating weight. I prefer to keep this to thickness vs width<br> <dael> Rossen_: I hear both sides and bradk has a valid case here for width.<br> <dael> Rossen_: Let's take a straw pool<br> <dael> jensimmons: I'm disappointed that I proposed weight and it was considered in a meeting where I wasn't there. Normally folks try and make people in the conversation. And now we're relitegating a decision. I'm surprised this happened because tha'ts not usually for the group<br> <dael> Rossen_: You had asked us to discuss without you here. We don't usually hold off when there's group consensus. Making decisions in that regard is fine and according to what we've been doing. It's also fine to bring the topic back and say you want to rediscuss something.<br> <florian> Jen did say we could decide without her. But if we are relitigating, I think her option should be included<br> <dael> Rossen_: We can have a straw poll of thickness vs width. Since you're bringing the point back if you want to reintroduce it let's add weight for completeness. We'll decide based on straw poll. Sound fair?<br> <fantasai> +1 to Florian<br> <dael> florian: Can we use fantasai straw poll?<br> <fantasai> suggestion was a) weight b) thickness c) width d) no change (= thickness)<br> <dael> Rossen_: Best to use same order as first time.<br> <dael> Rossen_: Nevermind, first didn't have weight<br> <dael> Rossen_: a) weight b) thickness c) width d) no change (= thickness)<br> <myles> BBBBBBBBBB<br> <dael> Rossen_: Enter choices in IRC<br> <bradk> C) -width<br> <fantasai> c<br> <smfr> b<br> <astearns> d<br> <jensimmons> Prefers A. Would be ok with B.<br> <plinss> c<br> <chris> b<br> <drousso> b<br> <stantonm> b<br> <TabAtkins> b due to compat, c in my heart<br> <Rossen_> b<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins, that would be d :)<br> <TabAtkins> oh so I guess that's D, not B. Then C in my heart.<br> <dbaron> b or c<br> <rachelandrew> b<br> <florian> abstain<br> <emilio> b<br> <dael> Rossen_: Waiting on anyone?<br> <dauwhe> b<br> <dael> Rossen_: 10 seconds<br> <chris> looks like the winner is B<br> <dael> Rossen_: I think it's clear decision is thickness and no change to current spec<br> <dael> Rossen_: Resolve on no change to the current spec, thickness<br> <dael> RESOLVED: No change to the current spec, use thickness<br> <dael> Rossen_: jensimmons anything else FF engineers waiting on?<br> <dael> jensimmons: Another issue fantasai was writing text on<br> <dael> Rossen_: Anythong on the agenda?<br> <dael> jensimmons: No, thanks<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4138#issuecomment-521320112 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2019 16:30:55 UTC