- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2023 23:08:24 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[cssom-view] checkVisibility options have inconsistent naming schemes`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: Adopt the naming scheme for future values and as aliases for existing values` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <dael> fantasai: we're pretty inconsistent where we have checkOpacity and css has checkVisibility. Proposal is to set up naming scheme where for CSS<br> <dael> fantasai: fooProperty for CSS foo property checks. fooBar for CSS foo property checking value Bar. For the current values that translates to opacityProperty, visibilityProperty, and contentVisibilityAuto<br> <dael> fantasai: Comments on issue that check makes it easier to understand, but could lead to checkcheck for things like checkVisibility<br> <dael> fantasai: Need some consistency so this is proposal<br> <dael> vmpstr: This is in addition to existing properties as aliases?<br> <dael> fantasai: Yeah. Others are shipping so we need to keep them<br> <dael> astearns: Anything new we add will follow this scheme<br> <dael> astearns: Seeing agreement in issue. Hearing no concerns<br> <TabAtkins> +1 to the proposal<br> <dael> astearns: Prop: Adopt the naming scheme for future values and as aliases for existing values<br> <dael> astearns: Obj?<br> <dael> RESOLVED: Adopt the naming scheme for future values and as aliases for existing values<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9487#issuecomment-1789812122 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 1 November 2023 23:08:25 UTC