- From: Peter Linss via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2023 02:20:31 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
No, I'm not walking that back. The point of that remark was that if we found out that look-ahead was viable, but would take time to implement, then I'd be ok with option 3 as a short-term, interim step. Now that we not only know that look-ahead is viable, but we **already have an implementation of it**, I see no reason for option 3 to remain in the spec. The fact that vendors have actually prematurely shipped a non-standard implementation is irrelevant. There's no reason to spec option 3 behavior, their existing implementations can remain non-standard. So, yeah, I believe we can, and should take option 3 off the table and remove it from the spec now, one way or another. It can be replaced with either the look-ahead approach or an at-rule based approach pending the above mentioned discussion we need to have. -- GitHub Notification of comment by plinss Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8249#issuecomment-1496830116 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 02:20:33 UTC