Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-scoping] Publish updated css-scoping-1 draft? (#7494)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-scoping] Publish updated css-scoping-1 draft?`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Republish when ready`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;emilio> topic: [css-scoping] Publish updated css-scoping-1 draft?<br>
&lt;emilio> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7494<br>
&lt;emilio> lea_: I recently pulled up the spec and since drafts.csswg.org was down I used the last published draft<br>
&lt;emilio> ... last published version is from 2014, which is too long ago<br>
&lt;miriam> q+<br>
&lt;chris> +1<br>
&lt;emilio> chris: I just updated the draft changes so I think it should be good to publish<br>
&lt;miriam> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5809#issuecomment-910896765<br>
&lt;Rossen_> ack miriam<br>
&lt;emilio> Rossen_: given fantasai_ and TabAtkins are out happy to resolve and let them bring it back next week if needed<br>
&lt;emilio> miriam: we resolved a while ago to reorganize some of the scoping features<br>
&lt;emilio> [see comment above]<br>
&lt;emilio> chris: I don't recall everything but some of those changes have been made<br>
&lt;emilio> miriam: only concern is to keep clear what belongs where, but not opposed to republish<br>
&lt;emilio> jensimmons: I think the scoping spec is not about scoping because those bits are from the cascade spec<br>
&lt;emilio> ... there's confusion because there's a whole bunch of scoping ideas<br>
&lt;chris> q+<br>
&lt;emilio> ... so if you search for css scoping you end up in the wrong place<br>
&lt;emilio> ... so it'd be clearer if the spec was called shadow<br>
&lt;emilio> ack chris<br>
&lt;Rossen_> ack chris<br>
&lt;emilio> chris: I'm in favor of pushing specs forward, but if we're going to cause confusion I'd rather wait a week or two<br>
&lt;lea_> not sure anyone is actively following when a new draft is published…<br>
&lt;chris> not opposed to a resolution<br>
&lt;emilio> Rossen_: feedback is great to draw attention on some of the historical context. doubt tab / fantasai would press the button just because they see a resolution<br>
&lt;emilio> ... we should capture everything needed to republish<br>
&lt;chris> also good if the introduction had, well, text<br>
&lt;chris> 1. Introduction  ...<br>
&lt;emilio> ... objections to republish when tab / fantasai are ready?<br>
&lt;Rossen_> q?<br>
&lt;emilio> RESOLVED: Republish when ready<br>
&lt;jensimmons> And thanks lea_ for pointing out this needed to be republished!<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7494#issuecomment-1190480871 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Wednesday, 20 July 2022 16:13:18 UTC