W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > November 2019

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-ui] 'auto' as the initial value for the 'appearance' property isn't web-compatible (#1250)

From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 17:15:29 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-556123244-1574270128-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The CSS Working Group just discussed `Remove warning about 'appearance'`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Remove implementation warning and add a note about possible changes to list of values for webcompat. Wording at editors discretion`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: Remove warning about 'appearance'<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1250#issuecomment-492759907<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I can unless whomever added it wants it<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> I'll be in one sec... (Feel free to do the next issue first)<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Design of appearance property is proceeded by a warning that we don't know if it's webcompat. What's spec is a combo of none and auto and a few compat things. It seems that design works and people are trying to implement. I have been asked to remove it.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I support removing the warning. If we agree I will remove the giant note that says this isn't good to impl<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: Who has shipped support?<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I think Google is trying to ship support for this. I don't know the state<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I think Mozilla is also trying<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: Presumably someone is trying to ship or else it wouldn't be a compat problem<br>
&lt;dael> florian: It was a compat concern. The work zcorpan did showed it was likely to be web compat. We never know until everything is finished<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: Comment says it's for webcompat. THe legacy keywords are for web compat<br>
&lt;dael> florian: The spec is for web compat<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: Then that means someone must have impl it.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Is zcorpan on?<br>
&lt;dael> florian: It was designed in order to handle web compat. zcorpan researched it and I believe he concluded it was. It has not shipped<br>
&lt;fantasai> +1<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: ANy reason not to remove the warning? Warning was pending someone attempting to impl. Seems there are attempts to impl and experiment. If that's the case let's remove warning<br>
&lt;dael> fremy: Makes sense. If there's a problem when people impl we can change the spec. NO reason to think there is so we can remove the note.<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: I'd prefer to leave something but remove the warning it's not okay to ship. I think we should still have a warning saying we're not sure this is going to work.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Are we sure anything will work before we ship?<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: I think we're particularly unsure<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Could change to something that says set of values other than none needs to be evaluated. Need to figure out if this is the correct set<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Agree but we have spent time investigating. It won't be over until shipped, but it's not that it hasn't started<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Something like as far as WG understands this is the set of non-none values, but more input is welcome<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: I think your first wording is right, but change to tense that we are evaluating and continuing to evaluate<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: zcorpan evaluated and we came to a comclusion<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: He says the list is being tweaked so I think that's not final<br>
&lt;dael> florian: He requested the removal<br>
&lt;fantasai> Replace curent wording with "ISSUE: We are evaluating Web-compat of this feature's list of values. Please send any relevant feedback to the CSSWG" ?<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: But I wouldn't dispute what he's saying<br>
&lt;fantasai> or maybe even s/ISSUE/NOTE/<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Prop: We have a not suggesting people impl and try this out, but we are open to more input on what the necessary set of values are. Let the editors wordsmith that.<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: sounds fine<br>
&lt;dael> s/not/note<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: fantasai suggests it's an issue not a note?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: No opinion, I just wanted to put wording<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Leaving to the editor and moving on is okay<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: b/c it's an open question still about  normative text i think it deserves to be an issue. Note implies nothing normative will change<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: We often put notes in L3 drafts saying things might change in L4<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Would you object to leaving as a note tantek ?<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: I can live. Just indicating preference<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Proposal: Remove implementation warning and add a note about possible changes to list of values for webcompat. Wording at editors discretion<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: Remove implementation warning and add a note about possible changes to list of values for webcompat. Wording at editors discretion<br>

GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1250#issuecomment-556123244 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2019 17:15:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:56 UTC