- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 17:14:02 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-cascade-5] Allow authors to explicitly place unlayered styles in the cascade layer order`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: we use a caret approach. It's part of the syntax and not part of the name. Weak/strong with the same name is ok` * `RESOLVED: strength is exposed in CSSOM, details tbd.` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <noamr> miriam: we discussed this at the f2f. we seem to have a solution in the thread. the goal is being able to name layers that are stronger than unlayered styles<br> <noamr> miriam: the proposal is to have a character before the name that marks that a layer is stronger rather than weaker than unlayered style<br> <noamr> miriam: we suggested the caret, a concern was raised that the character should not be part of the name. this sent us back. in that thread we've agreed on a path forward, if we're ok going with this<br> <noamr> miriam: 1. resolving that we're taking on the caret approach at the beginning of the layer name. 2. The caret is syntax rather than a layer name.<br> <noamr> miriam: this allows one issue to discuss, whether we allow name conflicts between strong and weak layers of the same name<br> <TabAtkins> q+<br> <noamr> miriam: sounds OK?<br> <Rossen6> ack TabAtkins<br> <noamr> TabAtkins: seems fine. It would have been ok in the name but this is acceptable. for name conflicts, everything gets more complex if we try to prevent conflicts<br> <noamr> TabAtkins: it's reasonable if weak/strong names are different in the CSSOM, works similar to important<br> <kizu> +1<br> <bramus> +1<br> <noamr> miriam: seems right<br> <kbabbitt> +1 to the proposal, I had someone ask about this feature the other day<br> <noamr> rossen: anyone wants to add? challenge?<br> <noamr> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: we use a caret approach. It's part of the syntax and not part of the name. Weak/strong with the same name is ok<br> <noamr> bramus: also something about CSSOM?<br> <noamr> miriam: we expose strength in CSSOM<br> <TabAtkins> names come in "strong" and "weak" versions, in the CSSOM there's a bool that reflects this; in the @layer rule a ^ prefix indicates it's strong<br> <noamr> RESOLVED: we use a caret approach. It's part of the syntax and not part of the name. Weak/strong with the same name is ok<br> <noamr> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: strength is exposed in CSSOM, detailxz TBD<br> <noamr> rossen: objections?<br> <noamr> RESOLVED: strength is exposed in CSSOM, details tbd.<br> <noamr> rossen: miriam, you're going to follow up?<br> <noamr> miriam: sure<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6323#issuecomment-2654364266 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2025 17:14:03 UTC