- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 16:59:46 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `rch and rex`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: Add root-relative variants of *all* the font-relative units, named r*` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <fantasai> Topic: rch and rex<br> <Rossen_> call dropped... not object but like to have the note added<br> <TabAtkins> ScribeNick: TabAtkins<br> <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6034#issuecomment-925972959<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: request for rch, represeting the root ch size, and rex for root ex size<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: I think adding rch totally makes sense, and adding ric as analog for ic<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: don't quite see the use-case for rex, tho it's simple to implement<br> <gtalbot> hi florian :)<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: So my suggestion is just ot add rch and ric for now<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: And see if there's a need<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: but jonathan kew suggested we just do the full set of font-relative units<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: I agree with jfkthame, having half or more available and some not seems bad for authors<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: if adding more than one, add all of them<br> <Rossen_> q+<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: so proposed resolution is to add r* variants of all the font-relative units<br> <astearns> ack Rossen_<br> <TabAtkins> Rossen_: adding stuff is easy, removing is very difficult<br> <TabAtkins> Rossen_: I'm not hearing strong use-cases<br> <TabAtkins> Rossen_: We can always add later<br> <TabAtkins> Rossen_: Would be better to have a hygiene of use-cases we are solving as we expose more<br> <TabAtkins> Rossen_: Otherwise later we scratch our heads over something that's not quite baked<br> <TabAtkins> Rossen_: So unless we have strong use-cases, let's just add things the ones we know about now<br> <TabAtkins> astearns: So are you suggesting only adding rch?<br> <TabAtkins> Rossen_: ONly rch and rex, yes<br> <TabAtkins> astearns: I'm only seeing a use-case in the issue for rch<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: and ric<br> <astearns> ack fantasai<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: I don't particularly see a strong use-case for rex<br> <TabAtkins> q+<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: But whether we add it now or later, we'll have to reserve that name, because we'll want all the units, if they ever get a root-relative variant, to follow the same pattern<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: So in terms of what it allows for our APIs in the future, the name is reserved anyway; we're not limiting ourselves either wya<br> <astearns> ack TabAtkins<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: Normally I'm 100% behind what Rossen just said, and expressed strongly for other proposals<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: but the issue is that there is more than one competing concern here<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: and author confusion over what's allowed or not is a significant issue here<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: if only one rem, that's easy to remember. if all units, that's easy to remember<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: if just some arbitrary subset is allowed, then that is confusing<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: If there was a significant implementation complexity, or even a moderate one, then I'd be sympathetic<br> <Rossen_> q?<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: but after adding one root font relative unit, adding more is very cheap<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: so adding all of them is what makes the most sense for authors, from usability perspective<br> <smfr> agree with TabAtkins<br> <TabAtkins> Rossen_: That's a compelling point<br> <TabAtkins> Rossen_: I did factor what you said in, in the way it was originally proposed<br> <TabAtkins> Rossen_: So I'm less concerned now<br> <TabAtkins> astearns: So proposed reoslution is to add all the root-relative font-relative units?<br> <argyle> +1<br> <TabAtkins> astearns: Concerns? Objections?<br> <TabAtkins> RESOLVED: Add root-relative variants of *all* the font-relative units, named r*<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6034#issuecomment-942507621 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 13 October 2021 16:59:48 UTC