Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-overflow-4] scrollbar-gutter is too complex (#4674)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-overflow-4] scrollbar-gutter is too complex`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: accept the edited changes as described by florian`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: [css-overflow-4] scrollbar-gutter is too complex<br>
&lt;dael> Github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4674<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: Update of the breakout that took place last week<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: It also had spec text added to capture what was decided and discussed<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: I wanted to give chrishtr or florian a few minutes to recap and then see if we need resolutions<br>
&lt;dael> florian: WE had a meeting for about an hour<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Talked about scrollbar-gutter, figured out extent of use cases which are possible to address. Also focus on subset of values ew can be sure are good to ship soon<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Make sure we don't paint into a corner with incorrecct subset<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Stable is auto and stable values with a twist of making stable apply to overflow:hidden state as well<br>
&lt;dael> florian: With that addition auto and stable are the core subset to serve the main use case<br>
&lt;dael> florian: The both value to apply to both sides is least controversial. Everything else has not been deleted but moved to non-normative appendix of things being explored.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: No radical redesign to what has been moved. Discussion during the call could leave to radical changes, but not there yet. Just moved off.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: One extra thing I did after the call is we had come complaints names were hard to figure out. I thought both value was tricky. For now, named to mirror to hopefully be more explicit<br>
&lt;dael> florian: We can bikeshed if you don't like<br>
&lt;Rossen_> q<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Spec now includes overflow:hidden, both named to mirror. Everything moved to appendix. Since remaining properties can only do anything to scroll containers applies to line has been changed from all elemetns to scroll container<br>
&lt;dael> florian: When we extend to the cases in the appendix may that will relax but not defined narrow<br>
&lt;florian> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-overflow-4/#scrollbar-gutter-property<br>
&lt;dael> florian: All this is in place. If that sounds good we leave spec as if. If it doesn't we have to make changes<br>
&lt;florian> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-overflow-4/#sbg-ext<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Main body of text ^<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Appendix ^<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Thanks florian<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Given the extensive changes and discussion during the breakout I wanted to ask if there were any comments at the moment. If not we can use summary and links to propose any changes and then come back to resolve next week<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> +1 to the changes<br>
&lt;chrishtr> q+<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I will do a bit of triage o nthe rest of the spec to see where we're at. If nothing blocking I may ask for a new WD which could be occation to bless or reject<br>
&lt;Rossen_> ack chrishtr<br>
&lt;dael> chrishtr: I didn't fully understand Rossen_, suggesting delay to next week for resolution?<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Inviting people to engage in comment now or given extent of changes we can give it a week for review. Is there are reason we can't wait?<br>
&lt;dael> chrishtr: Don't see reason to wait. It has been 2 weeks since breakout call<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Trying to see if people have strong reasons to require the extra time<br>
&lt;dael> chrishtr: If anyone has such a concern we can wait. It didn't anticipate one<br>
&lt;dael> fremy: If everyone in call was fine with changes I think it will be okay. Would be great to know exact changes we will resolve on<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: That's my point, a lot of people missing on breakout call. They need full context before we can resolve. florian did a great job of summarizing, but it's not the details<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Other option is assume it's fine and let people raise issues with no deadline on that<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Back to the WG and everyone interested. Does anyone need extra time to review the changes reflected in the spec? Or are we fine accepting now?<br>
&lt;dael> fremy: WOuld like to review, but fine to accept now and raise issues later<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Okay. Anyone else?<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Not hearing any strong reasons to delay the acceptance of the changes. Objections to accept the edited changes as described by florian ?<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: accept the edited changes as described by florian<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: For those who need time to review, please open issues. And other part is naming of the new values which I'm sure we can come back to<br>
&lt;dael> florian: A heads up that stuff in the appendix is expected to change. I have ideas, but it's explicitly marked as unstable and no one is trying to ship that part<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4674#issuecomment-857841639 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2021 16:17:48 UTC