- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 15:47:07 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-animations-2, css-transitions-2] Entry and exit animations for top-layer elements`, and agreed to the following: * ``RESOLVED: include `overlay` property with values of `auto` and `none` to position-4 with a note about concerns over extensibility`` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <emeyer> plinss: There was TAG discussion about popover, which turned into discussion about the top layer in general<br> <emeyer> …TAG is concerned about the overall design of the top layer<br> <emeyer> …It’s done by monkey-patching CSS<br> <TabAtkins> q+<br> <emeyer> …It should be defined by the CSS WG, but hasn’t been getting a lot of love<br> <emeyer> …There’s room for declaratively creating not just the top layer, but multiple laters<br> <emeyer> s/laters/layers/<br> <emeyer> …I think it should be controleld entirely in the CSS layer<br> <masonf> q?<br> <emeyer> …Don’t have a specific design, but the TAG feels it needs to be done<br> <astearns> ack TabAtkins<br> <emeyer> TabAtkins: I’ve had this on my to-do list<br> <emeyer> …To pull out painting order and do a spec about that<br> <emeyer> …We have a resolution on file to put that into the position spec<br> <emeyer> …Proper specification in CSS is on my task like<br> <emeyer> …In terms of authors being able to create layers other than the top layer, completely agree<br> <emeyer> …This has come up with anchor positioning<br> <emeyer> …I definitely support authors being able to define additional layers you can move things into<br> <chrishtr> q+<br> <emeyer> …In terms of making the top layer accessible, that’s been discussed and there are significant concerns<br> <emeyer> …Anything the UA is using the top layer for shouldn’t be able to be covered up<br> <emeyer> …That’s a larger, separate conversation<br> <emeyer> …Doesn’t have to prevent letting authos insert layers between document and “top layer”<br> <emeyer> s/authos/authors/<br> <masonf> q+<br> <emeyer> plinss: I understand the security concerns<br> <emeyer> …We have precedence for letting the UA override author styles and should use similar mechanisms for the top layer<br> <emeyer> …While we should allow authors to create layers, the top layer should just be another layer, not something special and magic<br> <lea> q?<br> <emeyer> …The magic can come from the UA stylesheet<br> <emeyer> astearns: Please add a link to the proposal you referenced<br> <astearns> ack chrishtr<br> <emeyer> chrishtr: We’re going to do the work to move the top layer stuff into the position spec<br> <dbaron> I think we might also have a somewhat older resolution for me to create a spec for the CSS painting model... :-/<br> <emeyer> …Can we go back to the thing in 8189, which is adding transition control for developers entering and exiting top layer?<br> <emeyer> masonf: In general, I’m in support of moving into positioning spec<br> <lea> how can we discuss entry/exit animations separarately to whether there will be author control of top-layeredness? These are intrinsically related<br> <emeyer> …I would be supportive of letting authors create a new top layer under the existing top layer<br> <emeyer> …Trying to do it with existing CSS in the existing top layer are difficult<br> <emeyer> …Like the top layer being an ordered set<br> <emeyer> …So I’d be against allowing direct control of the existing top layer<br> <emeyer> plinss: I’m not arguing the change how the top layer now works, I just think it should be explained using CSS<br> <emeyer> …Such as exposing the ordering via CSS<br> <emeyer> masonf: If that’s possible, I’m in favor of it<br> <emeyer> plinss: I think so<br> <emeyer> …it would also be great to fix all the z-index hackery that’s been done since day one<br> <TabAtkins> Found the resolution https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6685#issuecomment-930305697<br> <lea> +1 to everything plinss is saying of course<br> <emeyer> astearns: I’m hearing a lot of agreement and a stated plan to work on this in the position spec<br> <emeyer> chrishtr: That would be the first step, yeah<br> <astearns> ack masonf<br> <emeyer> …My proposal on 8189 is you can say transition and then a CSS proeprty that refers to the top layer behavior, and then the usual transtion delay<br> <emeyer> …So you could push transitioning things into the top layer<br> <emeyer> …My reading of issue commentary is that people are generally positive about the mechanism<br> <emeyer> …So if we’re good and want to pick a name, I think overlay would be fine<br> <masonf> +1 to `overlay`. `overlay-behavior` feels odd.<br> <emeyer> fantasai: I like the idea of using the word overlay, but think overlay-behavior is a bit weird<br> <bramus> +1 on just `overlay`<br> <emeyer> …I’m open to thoughts<br> <masonf> `overlay-index` ? That feels bad too.<br> <emeyer> astearns: The analogy to z-index would make me wonder why there aren’t integers allowed in the syntax<br> <masonf> q?<br> <emeyer> fantasai: This should go into position-4, not -3<br> <emeyer> chrishtr: Agreed<br> <emeyer> astearns: I’m seeing more people in favor of `overlay` rather than `overlay-index`<br> <emeyer> …We could put it into position-4 and see what people say<br> <emeyer> …So we propose to include `overlay` property with values of `auto` and `none`<br> <dbaron> (maybe some other name thoughts might be overlay-layer or overlay-level)<br> <emeyer> plinss: I have concerns this could conflict with other things we might do very soon<br> <emeyer> astearns: Amended proposal to include `overlay` property with values of `auto` and `none` to position-4 with a note about concerns over extensibility<br> <masonf> +1<br> <emeyer> RESOLVED: include `overlay` property with values of `auto` and `none` to position-4 with a note about concerns over extensibility<br> <TabAtkins> I'd actually totally missed this issue's discussion, but it sounds good to me.<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8189#issuecomment-1479815485 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 22 March 2023 15:47:09 UTC