- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 16:20:47 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-anchor-position-1] Request for FPWD`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: FPWD of css-anchor-positioning` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <emilio> TabAtkins: we talked about anchor positioning from a while back<br> <emilio> ... spec is pretty mature, our experimental impl is looking pretty good<br> <emilio> ... definitely still work to be done<br> <emilio> ... both in terms of making things well defined and features<br> <florian> q+<br> <emilio> ... but we'd like to implement in the relatively near future<br> <emilio> ... if there's questions I'm happy to answer<br> <emilio> ... otherwise I think people are familiar with the stuff<br> <emilio> florian: I agree from maturity it makes sense for FPWD maybe even more<br> <emilio> ... curious about other implementors<br> <emilio> ... at least about making sure they are not against this approach<br> <jensimmons> q+<br> <Rossen_> ack florian<br> <emilio> TabAtkins: WebKit has been at least reading it<br> <emilio> q+<br> <emilio> jensimmons: it's been something we've tried to look at and discuss<br> <Rossen_> ack jensimmons<br> <emilio> ... not sure how deep engineers have looked at it<br> <emilio> ... we've been pretty busy<br> <emilio> ... there's been some feedback about the spec not being quite ready for shipping<br> <emilio> florian: but not push back about being in the wrong direction right?<br> <emilio> Rossen_: not talking about shipping yet<br> <florian> +1<br> <emilio> jensimmons: It'd be great to have more time for review before folks ship it<br> <fantasai> scribe+<br> <fantasai> emilio: I want to say the same. I agree it's a problem that would be useful to solve<br> <TabAtkins> emilio: I agree this is a problem that would b euseful to solve.<br> <fantasai> ... I"m not sure about the general direction of defining things, e.g. .... CB<br> <TabAtkins> emilio: In general - not sure aobut particular syntax, but the general ability here is not objectionable<br> <fantasai> ... I don't think it's objectionable to publish<br> <fantasai> ... I agree with jensimmons it would be good to have time to review and prototype<br> <fantasai> ... I don't think there is any blocker, this is terribly wrong kind of thing on our side<br> <fantasai> ... so I would support FPWD<br> <florian> q?<br> <fantasai> jensimmons: It's on the roadmap for Chrome to ship in August<br> <fantasai> ... that's really soon<br> <Rossen_> ack emilio<br> <fantasai> ... would be better to have more time to review and participate in shaping the feature<br> <emilio> Rossen_: seems folks are happy for fpwd and we want to make sure we don't ship prematurely<br> <emilio> fantasai: what I hear is chrome was FPWD because it's shipping in August and they think there's only minor stuff<br> <emilio> TabAtkins: that's not what I said<br> <emilio> fantasai: but it's on your roadmap to ship?<br> <emilio> fantasai: what I'm hearing from jen and emilio is that they'd like time to review and probably have significant feedback<br> <jensimmons> I should correct myself, it's on Chrome's roadmap for 117, going to beta in August, and ship in early September. https://chromestatus.com/roadmap<br> <emilio> ... and some non-minor things might need changing<br> <emilio> ... I don't object to FPWD, it's probably past time for FPWD, I think we have agreement on this being worth solving and going in the right general direction<br> <TabAtkins> (I actually thought we'd already done FPWD some time ago, and was surprised that we hadn't.)<br> <emilio> ... so I hear full support for FPWD but uncomfortableness about shipping in two months<br> <emilio> Rossen_: I'm hearing that FPWD is not objected<br> <emilio> ... and mostly supported<br> <emilio> ... I'd like to take a call for objections and resolve that<br> <emilio> ... I'm wanting to hear from tab if there's anything else he want's to put on the record about implementation or shipping / testing / whatever<br> <emilio> ... but let's not relate the two and hold off on one based on the other<br> <emilio> RESOLVE: FPWD of css-anchor-positioning<br> <emilio> RESOLVED: FPWD of css-anchor-positioning<br> <emilio> Rossen_: tab do you want to correct some of the record about the shipping status?<br> <emilio> TabAtkins: We're open with our shipping status, we're planning on shipping on 117 _if there are no major changes_, so that's why we want FPWD and review<br> <florian> q+ to ask about TAG and HR<br> <emilio> q+<br> <emilio> fantasai: sounds like you want to get to CR within the next month or two?<br> <florian> q-<br> <emilio> ... have you requested all of the horizontal reviews and so on?<br> <fantasai> s/get/functionally get/<br> <emilio> TabAtkins: no, haven't yet because spec still needs some changes<br> <emilio> fantasai: but you want horizontal reviews within a month or two which are very busy<br> <emilio> TabAtkins: this is mostly extending abspos positioning<br> <emilio> ... we mostly need implementation review from other implementors<br> <emilio> ... to make sure that the features are covered and we don't rely on details of our impl<br> <emilio> jensimmons: CSSWG usually goes to FPWD and have enough time for reviewing from a variety of groups and experts<br> <emilio> ... and this seems very fast specially at a time where folks might go on vacation<br> <tantek> +1 jensimmons — this feels unusual for the "normal" CSSWG workmode<br> <emilio> ... I get chrome is in the position to write a spec and ship, but this feels very fast<br> <jensimmons> I'm not assuming bad intent.<br> <emilio> Rossen_: let's stop this here, we have a resolution for FPWD<br> <jensimmons> I'm asking for time for everyone else to participate. As we normally do.<br> <emilio> q?<br> <TabAtkins> bare minimum of ~2 months, that's not "a few weeks" by any definition of "few"<br> <florian> +1 to Jen<br> <emilio> q-<br> <tantek> Thanks TabAtkins<br> <emilio> +1 to having more time, for reviewing anchor-positioning fwiw<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8929#issuecomment-1591593743 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 14 June 2023 16:20:49 UTC