Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-cascade-5] Reconsider placement of unlayered styles, for better progressive enhancement? (#6284)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-cascade-5] Reconsider placement of unlayered styles, for better progressive enhancement?`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: accept the new reorder layering as detailed in the issue`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: [css-cascade-5] Reconsider placement of unlayered styles, for better progressive enhancement?<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6284<br>
&lt;dael> miriam: This came up in a few convos about cascade layers and migration path onto it. Potential for polyfill. As people move styles to layers they become invisible to older browsers.<br>
&lt;dael> miriam: Might work better if styles hidden from older browsers were more targetted styles rather than lower target defaults. Matches a bit better to how I think about progressive enhancement. Better defaults and then enhance details<br>
&lt;dael> miriam: jensimmons had a comment about letting authors decide and say where unlayered styles go which is also interesting idea<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Feedback from group?<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: As I said on issue, no preference. Fine with what group decides<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Silence suggests group is fine with either. What is prop miriam?<br>
&lt;dael> miriam: If we want to explore jensimmons option I could put time into that and see if good way to make it explicit. Happy to do that before resolving<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Even if we allow author to define we need a default<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I think it does make sense the way miriam suggested.<br>
&lt;bkardell_> +1 I was thinking what fantasai just said<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: When you have layers pulling in from an imported doc they are usually overwritten by outer style. If doing layers in sep files it's natural for ones in doc to have higher priority<br>
&lt;miriam> +1 that makes sense<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I think her proposal makes sense overall as a good default<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Anyone else?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I think it's more confusing when consider !important b/c they will not override. A little mixed feelings<br>
&lt;dael> miriam: !important in the unlayered styles we're putting at bottom of the normal stack. It's backwards<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Can't put !important below<br>
&lt;dael> miriam: By default normal styles are below layered styles. !important becomes above<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: So my explaination is opposite. Layer pulls it higher. !important overrides. Overall makes sense. Not a strong opinion but logic makes sense<br>
&lt;fantasai> S/Layer pulls/So proposal is layer/<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Hearing still support for the proposal. Will ensure good defaults and default !import override the first layer. Don't know if this needs further discussion or if we're okay<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Lean toward accepting<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: There's more consensus then I hear other or different opinions.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Let's call for objections and we can always revisit<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Objections to accept the new reorder layering as detailed in the issue<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: accept the new reorder layering as detailed in the issue<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6284#issuecomment-848921867 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Wednesday, 26 May 2021 16:32:30 UTC