Re: [csswg-drafts] [mediaqueries-4] Drop overflow-block:optional-paged (#5287)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[mediaqueries-4] Drop overflow-block:optional-paged`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Drop the value with a note explaining why`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: [mediaqueries-4] Drop overflow-block:optional-paged<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5287<br>
&lt;dael> florian: We have the overflow:block MQ which lets you ask if you're paginated or scrolling document when you overflow<br>
&lt;dael> florian: One value, paged, is optional. Hybrid and last found in Opera 12. Looked normal but if you put a forced break you get a new page. If user set browser for presentation mode. It's like screen but you can get pages. That's optional paged.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Opera 12 no longer ships and no other UA does this. I don't expect it impl any time soon.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Also, I'm not sure next time someone experiments with that kind of behavior that they'd do it like Opera so I'm not sure spec should define how impl behaves<br>
&lt;dael> florian: In favor of dropping this. fantasai argued mark at-risk which is normal for spec but not impl. Since I think ti's not clear that mode wouldn't be used as spec prefer drop<br>
&lt;dael> tab: Agree with florian<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: No reasonable expectation of any impl to match this between CR and REC?<br>
&lt;tantek> q+ to ask since it has shipped, there may be content, should we mark it obsolete?<br>
&lt;dael> florian: We wouldn't. Interesting reason to leave it in is if someone wants to experiment to something like that they wouldn't map to the other values. Could be a note saying if you're doing none of these come talk<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: Could leave with either option. Conern from content side where if it did exist there might be content out there using it. Could we consider 3rd option to mark as obsolete to say it was exposed to web<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: MQ wasn't<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Browser that behaved like this existed, but didn't have MQ<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Browser shipped the behavior but didn't have the value<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: How did they ship?<br>
&lt;dael> florian: If user pressed F11 they would get forced pages, but no MQ to get that<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Responded to presentaiton media-type so that's how you could get it. It was before MQ4 existed<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: Obsolute the presentation-type already?<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Ye<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: Okay dropping. Also okay in a draft as at-risk and it will be dropped in next draft. Gives public a chance.<br>
&lt;dael> stearns: We have a good signal from impl that none are looking into this. Prefer to drop though happy to have a note we're dropping without prejudice. No implementations now but we're open to experimentations<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Put note in section so if UA have interesting another mode you should talk to us since we had an interest.<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: But looking for impl interest<br>
&lt;dael> stearns: Prop: Drop the value with a note explaining why<br>
&lt;tantek> +1<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: Drop the value with a note explaining why<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: New publication?<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I have DoC and changes section and tests. Before resolving I do want to ask for another else to be at-risked.<br>
&lt;dael> stearns: So that's got to go into next week's agenda.<br>
&lt;dael> stearns: Thanks all<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5287#issuecomment-655641109 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2020 17:01:56 UTC