- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 18:10:33 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> I'm against that as well, but that's not what's being proposed here. It was, by Lea, and I said that in a response quoting them. > If it's determined that the lookahead research is going to take longer than people are willing to wait (which has not been determined yet), then shipping a partial solution that always requires some kind of prefix is the safest bet. The timing of the research has no bearing on what we do in the "infinite lookahead is infeasible" case; this is a non sequitur. The only way in which it *can* be relevant is if we start by intentionally limiting the current spec to the intersection of "infinite lookahead is fine" and "infinite lookahead is not fine". I don't think we should do so (as I said in response to Alan), but if we did, a required prefix is already out of that intersection. The only reason to use a prefix *now* is if we are planning to revisit the last year of discussion, and think that a particular prefix syntax has a good chance of being the final resolution. Absent that, *any* prefix is just as uncertain/unsafe as any other syntax. > I also have yet to see any justification as to why this needs to be rushed. "It doesn't need to be rushed" and "it doesn't need to be further delayed to revisit previous decisions, after more than a year of active discussion" are different things. If evidence of infinite-lookahead viability would cause us to present a different author-facing syntax, that would be a different story, but it won't. Since the current syntax *is* compatible with either result of the lookahead research, the only reason to continue to delay shipping at this point would be if we thought we were going to overturn our existing consensus. Whether we do so or not has nothing to do with the lookahead research, however. -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8249#issuecomment-1398759979 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 20 January 2023 18:10:35 UTC