- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 23:15:59 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-cascade-3] Publish Cascading and Inheritance 3 as a REC`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: Move forward with Cascade L3 REC without CSS 2 tests` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <dael> Topic: [css-cascade-3] Publish Cascading and Inheritance 3 as a REC<br> <dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5396<br> <dael> Rossen_: It'll transition to PR.<br> <dael> Rossen_: Do we have florian chris or fantasai on?<br> <dael> fantasai: I'm here<br> <dael> Rossen_: What is our readiness and what do we need to consider?<br> <fantasai> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-cascade-3/implementation-report<br> <dael> fantasai: Have impl report to everything new to L3^<br> <dael> fantasai: 2 passes<br> <dael> fantasai: Went through test suite, added so we have full coverage for new parts<br> <dael> fantasai: Do we want to transition to PR or do we need to cover parts of spec that are CSS 2 since that's a lot more work<br> <dael> Rossen_: Opinions?<br> <dael> Rossen_: Anyone who thinks we should cover parts that are css 2?<br> <dael> Rossen_: Not hearing any desire expressed<br> <dael> xfq: We can link to css 2 directly in the report and add css 2 tests in the implementation report<br> <dael> Rossen_: WOuld that be okay fantasai ? Is that straightforward to link ot existing test results<br> <dael> fantasai: impl that went through css 2 are quite old and not the same as the ones that passed L3. There would be 2 passes, but not the same. I also don't know where css2 impl report is. Let's see if I can find it<br> <fantasai> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css21_dev/20110323/report/<br> <dael> fantasai: Looks like this is css 2 test suite ^<br> <dael> astearns: If there were up to date from wpt that would be one thing, but we don't have css 2 suite in wpt<br> <dael> fantasai: They're in but require manual configuration so can't be automated by wpt. Looking at wpt would give fails that are not actual fails<br> <dael> astearns: You're saying it's a bunch of additional work to retest this spec coverage in css 2 tests<br> <dael> fantasai: It would be...it won't take a lot of time but probably a day if there are instructions on how to load the user stylesheet for the implementations<br> <xfq> https://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS2.1/20110323/reports/<br> <dael> Rossen_: I'm more interested in seeing how to move it without css2 retesting. Is there a reason we shouldn't? I get that this is a can we do it, but why?<br> <fantasai> test results for CSS2 - http://test.csswg.org/suites/css21_dev/20110323/report/results.html<br> <dael> Rossen_: Can we resolve without css 2 work?<br> <dael> Rossen_: Any objections to that?<br> <dael> Rossen_: Prop: Move forward with Cascade L3 REC without CSS 2 tests<br> <dael> Rossen_: Objections or reasons why we shouldn't do it?<br> <fantasai> s/without/without retesting/<br> <dael> RESOLVED: Move forward with Cascade L3 REC without CSS 2 tests<br> <dael> Rossen_: Who will handle? fantasai or florian ?<br> <dael> fantasai: Me<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5396#issuecomment-686086717 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2020 23:16:01 UTC