Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-align-3] Punt baseline-alignment to level 4 (#4660)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `punt baseline alignment to L4`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Take the legacy and baseline keywords of CSS Alignment L3 and move them to L4`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;heycam> Topic: punt baseline alignment to L4<br>
&lt;heycam> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4660<br>
&lt;heycam> TabAtkins: we want to take Alignment to CR and further<br>
&lt;heycam> ... it's a failr stable spec, tiny issues solved, except for baseline alignment<br>
&lt;heycam> ... propose taking baseline alignment stuff out and moving it to L4<br>
&lt;heycam> ... L3 will contain everything but that<br>
&lt;heycam> ... then pursue L3 CR<br>
&lt;heycam> fantasai: I think it's a bit odd since baseline was a very early feature in flexbox<br>
&lt;heycam> ... and it is already implemented<br>
&lt;heycam> ... but I won't object<br>
&lt;heycam> ... there's some issue about baseline alignment vs intrinsic sizing not being adequately explained<br>
&lt;heycam> florian: so remove the keyword from L3?<br>
&lt;heycam> TabAtkins: yes<br>
&lt;heycam> ... I don't see why we need to say anything about it in L3 if we also publish L4<br>
&lt;heycam> fantasai: alternative is just take the whole thing to CR despite these issues<br>
&lt;heycam> TabAtkins: flexbox L2 won't have the justify and align props<br>
&lt;fantasai> Main issue we're holding on is https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1409<br>
&lt;heycam> florian: if flexbox depends on L4, it's no worse than depending on the combined spec<br>
&lt;fantasai> Then there's also that baseline alignment section just eems to generate the majority of new issues<br>
&lt;heycam> astearns: what do we gain from a L3 CR?<br>
&lt;heycam> TabAtkins: process<br>
&lt;heycam> astearns: and highlighting issues with flexbox relying on unresolved things?<br>
&lt;heycam> florian: it's unfortunate but we have this problem<br>
&lt;heycam> fantasai: most incoming issues are around baseline alignment<br>
&lt;heycam> ... the other issue is the one dbaron raised<br>
&lt;heycam> astearns: slightly more in favor of pushing out a CR of L3<br>
&lt;heycam> ... since it replaces some parts of CSS2<br>
&lt;heycam> fantasai: no because this is just replacing a small part of Chapter 10<br>
&lt;fantasai> a few sentences<br>
&lt;fantasai> here and there<br>
&lt;tantek_> any incremental replacement of CSS2 is a good thing<br>
&lt;heycam> TabAtkins: but I would like to indicate that the rest of this is stable<br>
&lt;heycam> fantasai: I would also suggest punting the legacy keyword out of L3<br>
&lt;heycam> ... because it's defined but nobody's interested in implementing it<br>
&lt;heycam> fantasai: if nobody's willing to hook this into the HTML features it's defined to help, I don't feel like proposing people implement it<br>
&lt;heycam> TabAtkins: and they won't be doing it until these apply to block anyway<br>
&lt;heycam> florian: so is it pushed to L4 or At Risk?<br>
&lt;heycam> TabAtkins: L4<br>
&lt;heycam> ... not a stable feature since we have no implementation experience<br>
&lt;heycam> fantasai: or even idea of intent to implement<br>
&lt;heycam> RESOLVED: Take the legacy and baseline keywords of CSS Alignment L3 and move them to L4<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4660#issuecomment-577216894 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2020 14:49:04 UTC