- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 17:14:42 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-next] Adoption of the logo created by the CSS Next CG`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: WG likes the logo and would like to officially endorse it, will investigate what that means` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <argyle> just me?! https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/v2C9XE5D/Screenshot%202024-12-11%20at%209.02.54%E2%80%AFAM.png<br> <TabAtkins> just you<br> <TabAtkins> argyle: let me share my screen a bit<br> <TabAtkins> argyle: we're CSSNext, defining CSS4 and 5 (and 3 right now actually)<br> <TabAtkins> argyle: Trying to resolve all the properties and what space they go to<br> <TabAtkins> argyle: The CSS3 shield logo is everywhere, it was hot a decade ago but not now<br> <TabAtkins> argyle: not aging or scaling well<br> <TabAtkins> argyle: there's a lot of other language logos people are actively using<br> <TabAtkins> argyle: lot of community suggestions<br> <TabAtkins> argyle: Eventually we went with a more predictable one<br> <TabAtkins> argyle: "we joined the family"<br> <TabAtkins> argyle: [shows the logo]<br> <TabAtkins> argyle: We found fonts with license issues; JS logo is violating its font licence. We're using an open source font, and a special color for CSS<br> <TabAtkins> argyle: Logo is rounded corners except one<br> <TabAtkins> argyle: Lots of positivity, thought we could bring it up to CSSWG<br> <emilio> +1 for rebeccapurple :)<br> <TabAtkins> argyle: the red CSS square logo is used for favicons, maybe update<br> <TabAtkins> argyle: (red css logo has contrast issues anyway)<br> <TabAtkins> argyle: So hopefully CSS can get past the 3-shield<br> <TabAtkins> q+<br> <TabAtkins> astearns: outcome we want is a resolution from csswg to adopt this<br> <bramus> scribe+<br> <fantasai> scribe+<br> <astearns> ack TabAtkins<br> <bkardell_> q+<br> <bramus> TabAtkins: only feedback in gh repo is that logo as presented is not usable as a favicon<br> <bramus> ā¦ as long as the 16x16 version works for a favicon works, Iām in<br> <astearns> ack fantasai<br> <Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to ask about corners<br> <bramus> argyle: I added extra versions<br> <TabAtkins> argyle: yup, i've posted the new version, it looks nice at 16x16<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: is there some symbolism to using the top-left corner as unrounded?<br> <TabAtkins> argyle: the original designer just proposed it that way<br> <TabAtkins> argyle: other logos are pointy<br> <TabAtkins> argyle: we rounded the corners, but as a flair there's one pinched corner<br> <TabAtkins> argyle: everyone liked it was more playful than equally rounded, now it looks more like a speech bubble<br> <TabAtkins> argyle: so no big meaning, it was just in the original design<br> <astearns> ack bkardell_<br> <TabAtkins> bkardell_: did i hear that we're asking the WG to adopt this?<br> <TabAtkins> argyle: more of an endorsement...<br> <florian> q+<br> <ChrisL> q+<br> <TabAtkins> bkardell_: if we do, then the logo has a w3c relationship. we'll need to loop in the comms team<br> <TabAtkins> argyle: maybe licensing, too<br> <astearns> ack florian<br> <TabAtkins> florian: agree, we shoudl loop in comms and maybe legal<br> <TabAtkins> florian: i think it's pointless to do that if WG isn't interested, so we shoudl want to adopt it before we check how to. this conversation si useful<br> <TabAtkins> florian: but if we are in support there are probably more steps.<br> <bkardell_> Yes<br> <TabAtkins> florian: we can give endorsement (tho it's not clear out charter calls for it). it just wont' be the last step<br> <astearns> ack ChrisL<br> <TabAtkins> ChrisL: comm team is already aware.<br> <TabAtkins> ChrisL: I've gone back and forth. I've asked if they wanted me to block or promote, they said no opinion, do what you want<br> <TabAtkins> ChrisL: the red one had no formal process, it just showed up one day<br> <TabAtkins> q+ about red one<br> <astearns> ack TabAtkins<br> <bramus> TabAtkins: the redone came from john dagget when he was the editor of the font spec<br> <bramus> ā¦ might have been me that added it<br> <TabAtkins> argyle: it does pop<br> <florian> I like it, FWIW<br> <TabAtkins> argyle: closing remarks, this is kinda justa humble offering. pleased it's resonated so far<br> <TabAtkins> argyle: whenever someone says "copy this CSS from X", they use the shield logo, we could do better<br> <bkardell_> yes, I also personally like it fwiw<br> <TabAtkins> argyle: if we do want to make it more official and there's legal processes, happy to be involved if needed<br> <ChrisL> I like it too<br> <TabAtkins> astearns: proposed reoslution: WG likes the logo and would like to officially endorse it, will investigate what that means<br> <kbabbitt> +1 I like it<br> <TabAtkins> +1<br> <bkardell_> š<br> <ChrisL> +1<br> <florian> +1<br> <joshtumath> +1<br> <TabAtkins> astearns: objections?<br> <brecht_dr> +1<br> <ydaniv> +1<br> <TabAtkins> RESOLVED: WG likes the logo and would like to officially endorse it, will investigate what that means<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/11193#issuecomment-2536594229 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2024 17:14:43 UTC