Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-values-4] Allow an inline way to do "first value that's supported" (#5055)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-values-4] Allow an inline way to do "first value that's supported"`, and agreed to the following:

* ``RESOLVED: add `first-valid` and please add an issue to bikeshed the name once we better understnad the scope``
* ``RESOLVED: add `first-valid` and please add an issue to bikeshed the name once we better understand the scope``

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;emeyer> Topic: [css-values-4] Allow an inline way to do "first value that's supported"<br>
&lt;emeyer> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5055<br>
&lt;emeyer> TabAtkins: This is trying to address an issue that’s become more prevelant as variables have become more common.<br>
&lt;argyle> right at the good part!<br>
&lt;emeyer> …CSS lets you use new features and fall back to old ones by writing something twice.<br>
&lt;emeyer> …Variables break this.  We assume things are valid at parse time, and only find out later whether or not they are.<br>
&lt;emeyer> …This same problem is going to come up with more things that do things at parse time.<br>
&lt;lea> q?<br>
&lt;lea> q+<br>
&lt;emeyer> …Proposal is to allow things to sub in the first thing the UA understands at parse time.<br>
&lt;dbaron> ... has to be the full value of the property<br>
&lt;emeyer> …This will need some clarification about how it can or can’t be nested.  So we’ll want to define some contextual stuff.<br>
&lt;emeyer> …Overall it’s an attempt to get parse-time fallback behavior.<br>
&lt;fremy> huge +1 of course<br>
&lt;astearns> ack lea<br>
&lt;emeyer> lea: This would be incredibly useful.  Would it be availabnle in descriptors as well?<br>
&lt;emeyer> TabAtkins: I don’t see why not.<br>
&lt;emeyer> s/availabnle/available/<br>
&lt;emeyer> florian: So this is no different than writing a thing twice?<br>
&lt;emeyer> TabAtkins: Correct.<br>
&lt;emeyer> emilio: This would go away at parse time?<br>
&lt;florian> s/So this is no different than writing a thing twice?/So this is no different than writing a thing twice if you use it without variables?<br>
&lt;emeyer> TabAtkins: Correct.<br>
&lt;emeyer> emilio: That seems fine.<br>
&lt;emeyer> astearns: Any concerns?<br>
&lt;emeyer> …So the resolution is to add `first-of` to Values.  Any objections?<br>
&lt;emeyer> florian: Just wondering about the name of it.  If people see this out of context, will they think it’s a list manipulation thing?<br>
&lt;lea> Yeah, as much as I like terse names, first-of() is confusing<br>
&lt;lea> q?<br>
&lt;lea> q+<br>
&lt;emeyer> TabAtkins: It’s possible there will be misinterpretation, but at least they’ll run into confusion quickly.<br>
&lt;lea> q-<br>
&lt;miriam> +1 first-valid<br>
&lt;smfr> +1 on first-valid<br>
&lt;emeyer> florian: How abotu `first-valid`?<br>
&lt;emeyer> s/abotu/about/<br>
&lt;emeyer> TabAtkins: I like it.<br>
&lt;fremy> @emeyer: that was me<br>
&lt;emeyer> fremy: I support that.<br>
&lt;emeyer> astearns: We can bikeshed the name later.  Any objections to the idea?<br>
&lt;emeyer> …We are resolved to add `first-valid` and please add an issue to bikeshed the name once we better understnad the scope.<br>
&lt;astearns> RESOLVED: add `first-valid` and please add an issue to bikeshed the name once we better understnad the scope<br>
&lt;emeyer> RESOLVED: add `first-valid` and please add an issue to bikeshed the name once we better understand the scope<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5055#issuecomment-1022425917 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2022 17:29:32 UTC