- From: Miriam Suzanne via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2025 21:56:35 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Point two is the most compelling here. That potential namespace collision is the main issue we're left with. And it seems like a very niche issue to me in practice. As to theoretical future layer features (raised here and on the call): There are three and only three positions that are _fundamental_ to cascade layers. Two of them already exist. We can have styles _not in a layer_ (unlayered), and styles _below those_ (default layers). There's only one more position available for completeness – _above_ unlayered styles. There is not some arbitrary number of future positions at this level. If we use `^top` for the current situation, then we should absolutely never consider `^bottom` for anything other than the existing default behavior – which is the clear opposite. Any theoretical future reserved layer names/features would be dealing with a different level of concern – either contained within those three positions, or extending outside them entirely (as most of the existing proposals have). If we want to leave things as flexible as possible for future developments, I would _avoid_ expanding into a new name syntax for these fundamental positions. After following that thread, I'm (personally) back where I was, supporting the [existing proposal](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6323#issuecomment-2627871771). -- GitHub Notification of comment by mirisuzanne Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6323#issuecomment-2628466751 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 31 January 2025 21:56:36 UTC