- From: Alan Stearns via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2023 01:35:08 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@plinss while I have no love for the warts in option 3, I don’t think we are in a situation where we can take it off the table. I think it is much more likely that we have to accept the reality that is shipped _(too hastily, before we had clear answers for feature detection among other issues, and I think this will need it’s own section on the CSS Mistakes wiki)_ and that the restart look-ahead plan merely allows us to improve the syntax in the near future. You said above that > I'm also fine with shipping option 3 as-is, as soon as we know for a fact that look-ahead is viable, as an interim step until full lookahead can be implemented, because all the down-sides are temporary. (I personally don't think it would be worth shipping, but I wouldn't object to it.) Are you now walking that back? -- GitHub Notification of comment by astearns Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8249#issuecomment-1496804313 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 5 April 2023 01:35:10 UTC