- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 12:46:55 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-containment] Reorganizaing the Containment specs`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: Move CQs from contain-3 to conditional-5` * `RESOLVED: move contain-inline-size from contain-3 back to contain-2 to join its family` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <TabAtkins> florian: In Contain 3, we have CQs<br> <TabAtkins> florian: This is actually a seaprate feature. It depends on 'contain', but not *about* containment.<br> <TabAtkins> florian: So for editorial/publication conveninece, it woudl b enice to have separate things in separate specs<br> <TabAtkins> florian: So proposal is to move CQs to either a standalone spec or to CSS Conditional.<br> <TabAtkins> florian: either makes sense to me<br> <TabAtkins> florian: And we have a similar sitaution in css-contain-2, which contains some extensions to containment but also holds content-visibility<br> <TabAtkins> florian: which similarlyl depends on containment but doesn't define containment<br> <TabAtkins> florian: the speed these features are edited/tested/etc is different, which makes it harder to publish<br> <TabAtkins> florian: so maybe move CQ to CSS Conditional, and content-visiblity out of css-contain to a new spec<br> <TabAtkins> q+<br> <bramus> scribe+<br> <bramus> TabAtkins: Moving CQ makes sense. large chunky feature with distinct timeline of advancement<br> <bramus> … we very often have specs that have slight might of ideas that advance at different rates<br> <bramus> … we dont atomize our specs that finely<br> <bramus> … unless its causing an issue with maintenance or publication, we should not pull out features that arent core to the spec concept<br> <florian> q+<br> <astearns> ack TabAtkins<br> <bramus> … we arleady got a lot of specs … if we were to apply taht remotely consistently we would quadruple (?) a lot of specs<br> <bramus> … I’m fine with CQ moving out though, its relatively separate<br> <astearns> ack florian<br> <TabAtkins> florian: for content-visibility, this isn't about theoretical purity, but a practical issue.<br> <TabAtkins> florian: that part of the spec changes faster and has been editted by multiple poeple<br> <TabAtkins> florian: every time i try to edit Contain 2 and get it ready for pub, I spend a lot more time figuring out the status of that than the status of the entire rest of the spec<br> <TabAtkins> florian: that's why it's not published in two years<br> <TabAtkins> florian: I agree it's thematically connected. Another issue that might work for me is moving it to level 3<br> <TabAtkins> florian: That doesn't stand in the way of republishing as much as it does now<br> <TabAtkins> q+<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: waht's the status of contain-2?<br> <TabAtkins> florian: WD. getting close to CR<br> <TabAtkins> florian: I use <wpt> in my specs to link to all the tests. I don't udnerstand content-visibility nearly as well, and there are hundreds of tests about it.<br> <miriam> q+<br> <TabAtkins> florian: It keeps throwing warnings at me when I do the rest of the spec. not a blocker, but an editorial inconvenience.<br> <astearns> ack TabAtkins<br> <bramus> TabAtkins: in general im opposed to us maintaining levels at wd. if they have stability i want them to stay together<br> <bramus> … e.g. contain all existing at immature stability levels<br> <bramus> … wpt feature is causing issues in the spec<br> <fantasai> css-contian-1 is REC, so this is just between L2 and L3 afaict<br> <bramus> … you can drop all irrelevant ones<br> <bramus> … is the problem that we are adding more tests?<br> <bramus> florian: yes<br> <astearns> ack miriam<br> <bramus> TabAtkins: which is a good problem to have<br> <TabAtkins> miriam: I don't have strong feelings<br> <TabAtkins> miriam: when we first put CQs in the spec I think they were gonna be closer together in syntax, then we intentionally abstracted that relationship<br> <TabAtkins> miriam: so it makes some sense<br> <TabAtkins> miriam: i wonder if some of the issue is not just different features, but different editors as well, so we don't have a shared understanding<br> <astearns> ack fantasai<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: Moving CQ to Conditional 5 makes sense to me, makes sense to have them with the other conditionals anyway<br> <TabAtkins> astearns: so proposed resolution si to move CQs to Conditional 5<br> <TabAtkins> RESOLVED: Move CQs from contain-3 to conditional-5<br> <bramus> TabAtkins: I had a minor objection moving content-visibility bc we have two WDs of both 2 and 3<br> <florian> PROPOSED: Move contain: inline-size from css-contain-3 to css-contain-2<br> <TabAtkins> astearns: I'm gonna move the rest of the discussion to the issue<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: I think we can resolve onw hat florian just said tho<br> <TabAtkins> RESOLVED: move contain-inline-size from contain-3 back to contain-2 to join its family<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10433#issuecomment-2165558965 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2024 12:46:56 UTC