Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-2025][css-conditional-4] Add CSS Conditional 4 to Reliable CRs (#12694)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-2025][css-conditional-4] Add CSS Conditional 4 to Reliable CRs`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: css-conditional-for to Reliable CR section`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;ChrisL> q+<br>
&lt;emeyer> SebastianZ: this doesn’t have a very high interop (82%) but only has a few open issues on the spec<br>
&lt;emeyer> …question is, what’s the threshold to moving to reliable CR<br>
&lt;emeyer> ChrisL: We should look at the spec and tests; thaere are only 41 tests<br>
&lt;astearns> ack ChrisL<br>
&lt;astearns> ack fantasai<br>
&lt;ChrisL> s/the spec/only this level of the spec/<br>
&lt;emeyer> fantasai: An original goal for Reliable CR is to distinguish “this is almost a rec but we didn’t get close enough”<br>
&lt;emeyer> astearns: It is a good question to ask what the interop threshold should be — 80%, 90%, a particular number of tests?<br>
&lt;ChrisL> 35 × 100 ÷ 41 = 85.3658536585<br>
&lt;emeyer> fantasai: I don’t think percentages work, because sometimes they’re mostly parsing tests and may not fail when the spec isn’t supported and don’t say what’s actually failing<br>
&lt;florian> q+<br>
&lt;emeyer> …what you’re looking for is, “Is this really close to being a recommendation but there are a few remaining bugs or well-understood minor issues?”<br>
&lt;emeyer> …Has it been getting enough attention that bugs are likely to be found?  Or is it a mostly-ignored spec?<br>
&lt;ChrisL> q+<br>
&lt;emeyer> …When you have a lot of passing tests AND you know the feature is well-implemented across at least two implementations, that’s good<br>
&lt;SebastianZ> q+<br>
&lt;emeyer> …Just looking at test numbers may not tell you what you need<br>
&lt;emeyer> …Layers is one where I’d expect good numbers to be a high signal, but for layout you may have a lot of processing tests but not many rendering tests<br>
&lt;astearns> ack florian<br>
&lt;emeyer> florian: I think you may have mixed up categories a bit<br>
&lt;fantasai> or things like media queries or ui stuff, where you're more likely to have extensive processing tests than behavior tests<br>
&lt;emeyer> …I think we tend to be fuzzy about which level is for what, which isn’t a great thing<br>
&lt;emeyer> fantasai: I think in 2.2, we said “spec is stable, implementations aren’t there yet”<br>
&lt;emeyer> …if I look at media queries, gird 1 ¶ 2, those are stable specs with hardly any changes and they haven’t made it up to the main thing because the implementations aren’t there<br>
&lt;ChrisL> q?<br>
&lt;emeyer> …the main definition “these are practically Rec and we haven’t done the QA work to verify”<br>
&lt;emeyer> …“Reliable” is for “specs that are implemented with bugs or holes in test suites but very stable specs”<br>
&lt;astearns> ack ChrisL<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/specs that are implemented and very stable (almost no issues)/<br>
&lt;ChrisL> A CSS processor is considered to support a CSS selector if it accepts that all aspects of that selector, recursively, (rather than considering any of its syntax to be unknown or invalid) and that selector doesn’t contain unknown -webkit- pseudo-elements.<br>
&lt;emeyer> ChrisL: This was all nicve theoretical stuff, but I want to come back to the spec<br>
&lt;SebastianZ> q-<br>
&lt;emeyer> …ever since we started the spec, this hasn’t changed and it won’t change<br>
&lt;emeyer> …that’s why 41 tests is reasonable for that sentence<br>
&lt;fantasai> wfm<br>
&lt;emeyer> …so I propose moving this forward to Reliable CR<br>
&lt;emeyer> RESOLVED: css-conditional-for to Reliable CR section<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12694#issuecomment-3249713181 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2025 15:22:42 UTC