- From: Chris Harrelson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 21:46:10 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Hi @nt1m, > I want to raise the concern that a bunch of spec text landed without any prior review, notably the model described in this comment: [#8189 (comment)](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8189#issuecomment-1447989290) > > No resolution was made for this particular model, and it was never discussed in any CSSWG call. It was discussed in a CSSWG calll, see [here](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8189#issuecomment-1479815485). > Yet it ended up in the CSS positioning spec, which is fairly disappointing, and a bunch of follow up PRs in fullscreen/HTML specs were opened as well. Those were added to resolve the longstanding desire to move the definition of the top layer to CSS, via css-position-4, which was also discussed in the CSSWG as linked above, and also an earlier one a year or so ago. > The change from 1 to 2 element collections is a significant one. I don't know what you mean by this, can you clarify? Is it the [pending top layer removals](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-position-4/#pending-top-layer-removals) list? There's relevant discussion on the various PRs about how this is a concept related to the algorithms that use the top layer (fullscreen, popover, etc), I can link you to Tab for more details on why it's written that way right now if you need it. > I also asked for clarification on why the new model is linked to rendering updates without any clear answer. Could you clarify which question didn't receive an answer? I and others responded to all of your concerns and questions in #8189, as far as I can tell. -- GitHub Notification of comment by chrishtr Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8730#issuecomment-1526549552 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 27 April 2023 21:46:12 UTC