- From: Alan Stearns via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2023 17:37:11 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@jensimmons on the call you expressed concern about the "just switch the spec to the new strategy" option, preferring to keep option 3 in level 1 and creating a new level for the lookahead version. I am wondering what we would gain from that. As far as I understand, the additional syntax requirements in option 3 would still work with the look-ahead approach (they would just no longer be required). So an option 3 implementation would still conform, just not be complete. This seems good to me - ending up with a specification that addresses more concerns than the current draft spec does. We do at times have to spec a reverse-engineered version of what is required for web compatibility, but this should be a last resort. I do not think we are at that point yet with this very new feature. Could you go into more detail about your concerns here in the issue before next week’s breakout? -- GitHub Notification of comment by astearns Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8249#issuecomment-1497872921 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 17:37:13 UTC