Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-color-adjust-1] Limits on the `only` color scheme keyword (#3881)

The CSS Working Group just discussed ``[css-color-adjust-1] Limits on the `only` color scheme keyword``, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Remove only keyword, simplify the table, add a note about dropping only`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: [css-color-adjust-1] Limits on the `only` color scheme keyword<br>
&lt;dael> github:<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Should we do color adjust when we've got Rossen?<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: This would be good to get to<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/grid/grid, particular wrt lines rather than images/<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Now that we resolved to drop no-preference from color scheme the table I linked to above to showcase interaction gets simplier<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: If we drop no-preference column than light and dark look similar. Only difference is if the author says light and user wants dark or otehr way neither gets what they want and we use browser default. In all other cases author preference wins.<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Since only cases are author wins or no one wins and we get browser I think we should simplify and make it so that if you say light or dark that's what you get. We drop the only keyword as meaningful value<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Existing pages using only will continue to work exactly as they have<br>
&lt;fremy> lgtm<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Drop the only keyword and make light or dark respect author preference. If it's light or dark it's user preference<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Obj?<br>
&lt;dael> emilio: uneasy about overwriting user prefernce. Not really objecting<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/light or dark/'light dark' (allowing light or dark, preference to light)<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: User preference if honored if author is okay with lgiht or dark. Existing preference wasn't respecting user preference either, just author preference or going to browser default.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Other concerns with this change?<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: I like simplification. It's something we could complicate in future. At this point in time simplification makes sense.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Prop: Remove the 'only' keyword and simplify the table in the spec<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: No objections. Same as with MQ a not mentioning the dropped value would be useful if people try and look up<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Happy to do that<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Need text to parse<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Parses due to property extensibility. It's a dropped unknown keyword<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: Remove only keyword, simplify the table, add a note about dropping only<br>

GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2020 16:55:15 UTC