- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 16:31:47 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-conditional] choose names for keyword-based feature queries in @supports and names for initial set of queries`, and agreed to the following: * ``RESOLVED: use `named-feature()` as the function name`` * ``RESOLVED: call the keyword `align-content-on-display-block` `` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <TabAtkins> dbaron: About six months ago we had a discussion about adding a mechanism for one-off things in @supports that don't have an existing structure to fit in<br> <TabAtkins> dbaron: To solve some known problems that would otherwise be complicated to deal with.<br> <TabAtkins> dbaron: We resolved to do it, but not on what to call the things<br> <TabAtkins> dbaron: I opened an issue about naming, it has not had much discussion, but I have proposed names in the issue<br> <TabAtkins> dbaron: There was a bunch of disagreement about naming the last time we discussed it<br> <TabAtkins> dbaron: It seems like the sort of thing that might be easier in an issue but nobody was commenting, so telcon it is<br> <TabAtkins> dbaron: proposal is to call the query fucntion `feature()`<br> <TabAtkins> dbaron: And calling the feature for css alignment on blocks as `align-content-on-display-block`<br> <TabAtkins> dbaron<br> <TabAtkins> dbaron: I'm okay with resolving today or taking it back to the issue, as long as someone actually comments in the issue<br> <TabAtkins> astearns: The bit that's possibly not changeable is...<br> <TabAtkins> dbaron: It just might be less useful because the thing we want to detect has already been shipping for a while. So might not be useful/accurate.<br> <TabAtkins> astearns: I agree with the commenter that feature() isn't great, think named-feature() is slightly better. but don't have a strong opinion.<br> <kizu> +1<br> <TabAtkins> astearns: But since this isn't meant to be a very used feature, I think a longer name is fine<br> <TabAtkins> dbaron: fine with named-feature()<br> <miriam> q+<br> <TabAtkins> No opinion from me; lean slightly toward just feature(). keyword seems fine<br> <astearns> ack miriam<br> <TabAtkins> miriam: I think this is useful, having it matters more to me than bikeshedding it. happy with these proposed names<br> <schenney> q+<br> <TabAtkins> schenney: I'm in favor of named-feature(), makes it clear you're looking for a special name<br> <TabAtkins> astearns: We can reoslve on named-feature() and see if anyone complains afterward<br> <astearns> ack schenney<br> <TabAtkins> astearns: proposed resolution is to use named-feature()<br> <TabAtkins> RESOLVED: use `named-feature()` as the function name<br> <TabAtkins> astearns: do you want a resolution on the keyword too?<br> <TabAtkins> dbaron: We shoudl resolve on th ename, then figure out if we still want it<br> <TabAtkins> astearns: Proposed resolution: call the keyword `align-content-on-display-block`<br> <TabAtkins> RESOLVED: call the keyword `align-content-on-display-block`<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9875#issuecomment-2233725405 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2024 16:31:48 UTC