- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 22:32:48 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `Snapshot`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: Move contain-1, cascade-4, easing-1 to the official snapshot` * `RESOLVED: Move writing-modes-4, display-1, font-loading-3 to the "fairly stable" bucket` * `RESOLVED: Have snapshot buckets all be sections` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <fantasai> Topic: Snapshot<br> <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4715<br> <fantasai> astearns: I think all we need to decide is which specs go in which category<br> <fantasai> astearns: At the moment, there are four specs proposed to graduate to official CSS<br> <fantasai> astearns: 2 to graduate to "rough interop"<br> <fantasai> astearns: and 6 into "fairly stable"<br> <fantasai> astearns: Proposed to add to official set<br> <fantasai> astearns: Grid 1<br> <fantasai> astearns: Contain 1<br> <fantasai> astearns: Cascade 4<br> <fantasai> astearns: Easing 1<br> <heycam> fantasai: I don't think Grid is stable enough yet<br> <heycam> fantasai: shouldn't go into snapshot in the current state<br> <heycam> ... still waiting on test cases<br> <fantasai> chris_: What does stable mean?<br> <fantasai> chris_: People are relying on it<br> <fantasai> fantasai: Original purpose of snapshot, and we may want to rethink its purpose<br> <heycam> fantasai: the original purpose of the snapshot, might want to rethink, we had a whole bunch of specs that were basically recs<br> <heycam> ... but didn't have a completed "all tests pass, full test suite" etc.<br> <heycam> ... known limitations of the test suite, known bugs unfixed<br> <heycam> ... we wanted to capture the fact that these specs are basically recs, but have a few things need fixing up, which might take a while<br> <heycam> ... the bar for getting into that top level is really high<br> <heycam> ... another problem right now, we have a lot of specs which should be in CR but are not<br> <heycam> ... the poster child for these: animations, transitions, those kinds of things<br> <heycam> ... we added a note to the snapshot saying these are widely implemented, with fiddly bits not worked out yet. that new category<br> <AmeliaBR> q?<br> <heycam> ... then for completeness, we have a bunch of CRs, may as well put them in there. but there not at the "this is a Rec" level<br> <heycam> ... that's how we got to this point with those cateogries<br> <heycam> ... not sure what we need from the snapshot right now<br> <dbaron> I'm not quite sure I agree with the description of the third category...<br> <heycam> ... the purpose of the snapshot was to communicate things which were not obvious from the official status of the specs<br> <heycam> astearns: I propose we don't discuss the purpose of the snapshots today<br> <heycam> ... we have a list of specs that have been suggested to add, we can just move through them, and choose not to move individual specs if we want<br> <heycam> ... for the remaining things, that are being considered to be put into the official section, any objection to contain-1, cascade-4, and easing-1?<br> <TabAtkins> I object to Grid being omitted; I don't think that this is worth anything to authors if something of Grid's practical status is omitted.<br> <heycam> ScribeNick: heycam<br> <heycam> fremy: it's really weird that you would have contain but not grid<br> <heycam> florian: contain is a rec, grid is not<br> <heycam> fantasai: grid is not stable, the spec text is not at the same level of stability<br> <heycam> TabAtkins: regardless of still tweaking grid, authors are depending on grid in its current form in production all over the place<br> <heycam> ... if it's not considered stable for the snapsthot, I'm not sure what message it's communicating if grid is not there<br> <heycam> fantasai: it wasn't originally intended for authors<br> <heycam> ... hence we might want to discuss the purpose of snapshots<br> <heycam> dbaron: I think Grid is in a similar state to what we thought about animations a few years ago<br> <heycam> ... when it went into this category<br> <heycam> astearns: the first category is "roughtly interoperable"<br> <heycam> fantasai: grid belongs there, not the top category<br> <heycam> AmeliaBR: three categories are: official stable specs, roughly interoperable but needs more testing/bug fixing, fairly stable but needs more impl experience<br> <heycam> ... transitions, animatinos, grid, these are all in the "rough interop" category<br> <heycam> ... moving one up and not the others, not sure what the argument is for that<br> <heycam> astearns: to make some progress, I didn't hear objections for contain-1, cascade-4, easing-1<br> <dbaron> (BTW, I think I was confused about what was proposed to move where when I made my last comment.)<br> <heycam> RESOLVED: Move contain-1, cascade-4, easing-1 to the official snapshot<br> <heycam> astearns: two candidates for adding to "rough interop"<br> <heycam> ... align-3 and cascade-4<br> <heycam> fantasai: I thought cascade-4 was at the top now?<br> <heycam> astearns: cascade-3 is in the official part, cascade-4 is currently in the "fairly stable" part<br> <heycam> fantasai: cascade-4 I think is revert + scoping?<br> <heycam> ... shadow DOM scoping stuff<br> <heycam> dbaron: I have comments on align, but maybe we should talk about cascade first<br> <heycam> florian: cascade is part of the resolution we just took<br> <heycam> astearns: sorry, my duplication problem<br> <heycam> ... let's talk about align<br> <heycam> dbaron: one question about align is to what extent it's roughtly interop varies depending on what you're talking about<br> <heycam> ... align is pretty interop if you talk about it applying it flexbox<br> <heycam> ... but for applying display:block, it's mostly not implemented at all<br> <heycam> ... so I think that makes it a little unclear where it should go here<br> <heycam> AmeliaBR: are the parts of align that were originally defined in terms of flexbox/grid, is that text still in those spec? or has it been moved out to align<br> <heycam> fantasai: believe it's in flexbox, was never in grid<br> <heycam> astearns: seems like enough for me not to move it up to "rough interop"<br> <heycam> heycam: might want to split out the application to block to a separate level<br> <heycam> astearns: yes but there's still value to having the aspiration in the current spec<br> <heycam> chris_: there is a cost to splitting it out, can cause impls to slow down<br> <heycam> dbaron: in this case, we're in a position where the longer we wait, the more likely we'll have compat problems if we do it<br> <heycam> ... to the point that from a Gecko perspective we wouldn't be comfortable implementing first<br> <heycam> ... if we impl, find it is compatiable, nobody else impls, then a year later we find it's no long compatible, and we have to take it out<br> <heycam> astearns: for snapshot purposes, let's move on<br> <heycam> ... the last category is "fairly stable"<br> <heycam> ... 5 spec suggested to move into it<br> <heycam> ... writing-modes-4 (fairly small), display-1, fonts-4, font-loading-3, color-4<br> <heycam> chris_: despite being the editor, I will argue against color-4<br> <heycam> ... it's not quite ready<br> <heycam> ... the working color spec needs to be added<br> <heycam> ... fonts-4, I would argue for that<br> <heycam> ... the variable font part is good, rest is fairly reasonable<br> <heycam> ... I will resist splitting out the color font stuff<br> <heycam> ... I want to encourage impls by having it in there<br> <heycam> fantasai: there are a lot of open issues on fonts-4<br> <heycam> chris_: 67 of them<br> <heycam> fantasai: putting it into stablish category usually means fewer issues<br> <heycam> ... in terms of open issues, what does that look like?<br> <heycam> chris_: lots of little issues. a pile related to generic font families, ~20 of them<br> <heycam> ... many will be closed with no effort or dealt with<br> <heycam> ... think it's reasonably mature though<br> <heycam> fantasai: if it's reasonably mature, we should try to get it into CR and push it forward<br> <heycam> ... if it makes sense to push out the generic fonts stuff to level 5...<br> <heycam> chris_: I did ask i18n for wide review today<br> <heycam> ... but I give them a 3-6 months to CR guesstimate<br> <heycam> fantasai: I would love to see fonts-4 in CR<br> <heycam> ... at that point it would be great to add to the snapshot<br> <heycam> ... but given there are significant open issues, I don't think it qualifies as "fairly stable"<br> <heycam> ... but I think you're not far from there, could probably add it later in 2020<br> <heycam> astearns: so let's not add it to the snapshot for now<br> <heycam> ... we're down to 3 new candidates<br> <heycam> ... writing-modes-4, display-1, font-loading-3<br> <heycam> dbaron: I would like to change display-1 to display-3, since display-1 doesn't exist<br> <heycam> astearns: any concerns with those three specs going into the "fairly stable" bucket?<br> <heycam> ... any objections?<br> <heycam> RESOLVED: Move writing-modes-4, display-1, font-loading-3 to the "fairly stable" bucket<br> <heycam> astearns: organizational question about the buckets<br> <heycam> ... two are sections, one is a note. why not have 3 sections?<br> <heycam> fantasai: I think that would probably make sense!<br> <heycam> astearns: any objections to having 3 sections?<br> <heycam> chris_: sgtm<br> <heycam> RESOLVED: Have snapshot buckets all be sections<br> <heycam> chris_: who's pushing it forward? florian made the first draft<br> <heycam> florian: I am the editor<br> <dbaron> FWIW, I think I somewhat preferred the note setup rather than switching to sections, but I'm ok with sections<br> <heycam> ... I'm OK with doing some of it<br> <fantasai> dbaron, why?<br> <dbaron> fantasai, I guess I liked the idea of the snapshot defining one thing rather than three things<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4715#issuecomment-622152349 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 30 April 2020 22:32:50 UTC