[csswg-drafts] [meta] How should we indicate which features in a pre-CR draft are “stable enough” to reference? (#11863)

astearns has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts:

== [meta] How should we indicate which features in a pre-CR draft are “stable enough” to reference? ==
A question about the stability of the interactivity property https://drafts.csswg.org/css-ui-4/#inertness came up when we discussed an HTML PR yesterday https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/10956. It’s not entirely clear to me that the WHATWG process requires this, but it seems desirable to avoid linking to CSS features from non-CSS specs until the feature has reached some level of stability.

If the module is in CR, that seems obviously ready to be referenced. But we also have relatively stable features inside modules that are not yet in CR. How should we express the stability of individual features when some external party wants to link to them?

After discussing and taking a resolution declaring a feature is “fairly stable” like we sometimes do with a feature that is ready to ship, we could:

1. Add something to the draft noting the enhanced status
2. List those individual features in the “fairly stable” section of our snapshot
3. Something else?

I don’t expect we should do this for every stable-ish feature, but only when someone asks whether a pre-CR feature is stable enough to reference.

Thoughts?

Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/11863 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Friday, 7 March 2025 21:50:18 UTC