- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 16:17:38 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[cssom] How safe is it really to shorthandify properties?`. <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <chrishtr> fantasai: this was a question we discussed during the F2F<br> <chrishtr> fantasai: wanted to follow up and see what the issues are, and what it takes to resolve them<br> <fantasai> scribe+<br> <chrishtr> fantasai: in order to make progress<br> <fantasai> chrishtr: For well-established CSS properties (have significant usage across browsers), it's not worth it to shorthandify them after the fact<br> <fantasai> chrishtr: so we shouldn't do that<br> <fantasai> chrishtr: It's not worth the effort / risk / churn / cost of implementation and testing and potential compat risk<br> <florian> q+<br> <chrishtr> florian: you're right that there is a significant cost, churn, etc. and so we shouldn't do it lightly<br> <Rossen7> ack florian<br> <chrishtr> florian: but if there are strong reasons for a particular case we might want to do it despite the risk and cost<br> <chrishtr> florian: for such cases we should figure out how to do it, for such rare cases<br> <Rossen7> ack fantasai<br> <chrishtr> fantasai: this is a kind of important extension point for CSS, so it'd be good to find out how we can mak it less risky, in cases where it's justified<br> <chrishtr> rossen: should we continue such discussion in the issue?<br> <chrishtr> rossen: or should we accept the proposed resolution, and then continue to work on the issue for exception situations?<br> <flackr> q+<br> <oriol> q+<br> <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8398#issuecomment-2123561486<br> <chrishtr> fantasai: chris are there issues other than the ones Tab mentioned on issue 10004?<br> <chrishtr> chrishtr: my other concerns are the ones I mentioned in the comment (developer confusion/churn, cost of implementation, ...)<br> <fantasai> s/10004/8398/<br> <dbaron> (with the caveat that I think the description of the first of Tab's 2 issues is more complicated than what Tab described, as we discussed at the face-to-face)<br> <chrishtr> chrishtr: don't know of specific compat risks other than then ones mentioned in Tab's comment on 8398 above<br> <Rossen7> ack flackr<br> <chrishtr> flackr: maybe we could resolve not to do standard shorthandification, but if there was a way we can do it that avoids compat risk we could accept that?<br> <emilio> +1 to fantasai<br> <chrishtr> fantasai: i f we don't have a mitigation then it would have to be on a case-by-case basis<br> <dbaron> fantasai: If we don't have a mitigation I think it should be on a case-by-case basis.<br> <chrishtr> oriol: wondering what is meant by "well-established", maybe we could experiment with a specific case and learn more?<br> <florian> q+<br> <chrishtr> chrishtr: what I meant by well-established is a CSS property that has been around a while and is relatively widely used on sites<br> <Rossen7> ack oriol<br> <chrishtr> oriol: for particular cases it's still possible it wouldn't break anything<br> <chrishtr> oriol: is the position that implementations don't want to take the risk?<br> <chrishtr> chrishtr: yes, chrome would prefer to spend its effort elsewhere<br> <chrishtr> florian: not shorthandifying would lead to us introducing more longhands<br> <chrishtr> florian: whereas shorthandifying we'd potentially be able to have fewer<br> <chrishtr> florian: think we should still try to find mitigations<br> <fantasai> +1 florian, we've done this multiple times<br> <Rossen7> ack florian<br> <chrishtr> florian: we shouldn't do things with risk without limitation, but shouldn't ban it either<br> <fantasai> s/more longhands/more longhands when designing new features, for example we often design a simpler feature in the first iteration/<br> <chrishtr> florian: don't think we should ban it<br> <chrishtr> flackr: don't think anyone is proposing a ban<br> <chrishtr> florian: proposed resolution would amount to a ban?<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8398#issuecomment-2192099405 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2024 16:17:38 UTC