- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2024 01:13:22 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@nmn > This talk from Nicole Sullivan really brought up a lot of questions for me. That talk is out-of-date on the state of the proposals; similar to the Apple blog post at the top of this issue thread, it states that some things are impossible in one syntax when that is no longer true. (Basically anything written more than a few weeks ago is now useless for the purpose of this conversation and should probably be ignored.) Both syntaxes are capable of expressing the same things; it's a question of what defaults are best, how easy it is to express things, how teachable it is, etc. Also, and somewhat more importantly, the syntax has *never* been the reason that one proposal or another had or lacked a particular ability. Chrome had an objection to the *functionality* of the original Apple proposal, based on the way it was described to work; the *syntax* used for it was irrelevant. (The Chrome proposal's earlier syntax was more restrictive, *so that* things with bad performance couldn't be written; it was the perf that was the issue, not how it was written). We've since figured out a great compromise that allows the flexibility that the Apple proposal wanted, and the perf characteristics that the Chrome proposal tried to maintain. -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9041#issuecomment-2387448716 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2024 01:13:23 UTC