[csswg-drafts] The "Introduction" section of CSS Anchor Exploration is misleading (#9097)

mfreed7 has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts:

== The "Introduction" section of CSS Anchor Exploration is misleading ==
I'm raising this here on a CSSWG issue because I don't believe there is any other public place to discuss this proposal. It only exists at a private non-comment-able blog post.

I'm speaking about this proposal:

https://fantasai.inkedblade.net/style/specs/css-anchor-exploration/

In the Introduction section of that post, it says:

> This is a rough sketch of ideas. We hope it inspires Google to work with the CSSWG to improve [Anchor Positioning](https://www.w3.org/TR/css-anchor-position-1/) before shipping in Chrome, just as Microsoft worked with the CSSWG to improve Grid Layout into the much-loved system we have today.

That strongly implies that the [existing anchor positioning spec proposal](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-anchor-position-1/) was developed *without* working with the CSSWG somehow. However, we've been working with CSSWG all along:

- We [opened a CSSWG issue](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7282) in May, 2022, to start the public brainstorming and discussion. 
- We introduced the proposal at a [live CSSWG meeting on May 25, 2022](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7282#issuecomment-1137506735), and actively invited people to comment, get involved, and offer feedback and suggestions.
- We discussed the proposal again [live at CSSWG on September 16, 2022](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7282#issuecomment-1137506735).
- We then [discussed various aspects of the proposal in **29+ CSSWG issues**](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues?q=is%3Aissue+label%3Acss-anchor-position-1) and adapted the proposal in many, many ways in response to all of this great feedback.
- We requested, and CSSWG resolved, to move the proposal to FPWD [in February 2023](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2023Feb/0005.html), and again for good measure [in June 2023](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2023Jun/0003.html).

Given these facts, it'd be good to re-word or drop the counterfactual Introduction section. @fantasai @jensimmons @mirisuzanne 

In the meantime, there are several very interesting ideas presented in this new approach, and we appreciate those! We'll need some time to read through them, give them some thought, and come back to the group with some thoughts. If it's possible to make the slides used at the CSSWG F2F public also, that'd be helpful. There were a number of good use case examples in there that we'd like to think about more carefully.

Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9097 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Thursday, 20 July 2023 20:34:57 UTC