Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-2025][css-shapes-1] Add CSS Shapes 1 to Reliable CRs (#12697)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-2025][css-shapes-1] Add CSS Shapes 1 to Reliable CRs`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: close, no change`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;ChrisL> q+ on shapes<br>
&lt;emeyer> SebastianZ: Didn’t dive too deep into test coverage<br>
&lt;emeyer> …CSS Shapes is in good shape!<br>
&lt;emeyer> …We have 86% interop in Chrome and Firefox, around 20 GH issues and none on the spec<br>
&lt;emeyer> …Propose to add to Reliable CR<br>
&lt;astearns> ack ChrisL<br>
&lt;Zakim> ChrisL, you wanted to comment on shapes<br>
&lt;emeyer> ChrisL: I’m less convinced about this, and I think it should be in Rough Interop<br>
&lt;astearns> ack fantasai<br>
&lt;Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to comment on shapes being probably a mix of statuses due to recent introduction of shape()<br>
&lt;emeyer> florian: I suspect I agree<br>
&lt;emeyer> fantasai: We did just recently add 'shape()' and it hasn’t even been stabilized six months<br>
&lt;emeyer> …This kind of has two statuses because parts have been supported forever, and parts barely at all<br>
&lt;emeyer> SebastianZ: In rough interop, or not at all?<br>
&lt;emeyer> …It’s currently in “Fairly Stable”<br>
&lt;emeyer> florian: We do have more than limited experience for some parts<br>
&lt;emeyer> SebastianZ: It was added here a few snapshots ago<br>
&lt;emeyer> ChrisL: Before we made it unstable<br>
&lt;emeyer> SebastianZ: Exactly<br>
&lt;emeyer> …We could move Shape to the next level if we think it’s not stable enough<br>
&lt;emeyer> astearns: I’m inclined to leave it in Fairly Stable<br>
&lt;emeyer> …yes, we’ve been adding new things and they don’t have much implementation, but they’ve been added to the draft with tests<br>
&lt;emeyer> SebastianZ: Test coverage for shape() is actually quite good<br>
&lt;emeyer> …Firefox lacks support<br>
&lt;emeyer> astearns: I heard reservations about moving to Reliable CR; is everyone okay with no change, or pushing it down to Rough Interop?<br>
&lt;emeyer> florian: I support no change<br>
&lt;fantasai> But come back to it next year maybe!<br>
&lt;fantasai> +1<br>
&lt;emeyer> RESOLVED: close, no change<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12697#issuecomment-3249732385 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 15:28:21 UTC