Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-values-5] Names of the random-name keywords (#13601)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-values-5] Names of the random-name keywords`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: use element-scoped and property-scoped`
* `RESOLVED: property-index-scoped for the last one`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;kbabbitt> TabAtkins: in the other issue at a previous meeting, we reoslved to change how caching works<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... providing a dashed-ident makes it least random<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... keywords let you opt into uniquified per element, per property, etc<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... were left with decision on what those keywords should be<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... in spec they're element, property, index<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... been a few suggestions in thread, fantasai suggested in another issue element-scoped, property-scoped, index-scoped<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... I like this suggestion quite a bit more than any others that have been put forth<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... any 'per' or 'shared' ... it's become clear no one can agree on what that means, come to opposite interpretations<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... 'scoped' can't be misinterpreted<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... there's a scoping boundary between e.g. elements<br>
&lt;Rossen> q?<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... think that makes a lot of sense, suggest we resolve on keyword names element-scoped, property-scoped, and either index-scoped or property-index-scoped<br>
&lt;romain> +1<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> fantasai: let's talk about first two first<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> +1<br>
&lt;oriol> q+<br>
&lt;miriam> +1<br>
&lt;Rossen> ack oriol<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> TabAtkins: objections to element-scoped and property-scoped?<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> oriol: fine with this proposal but might get a little long<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... maybe a scope() function would be a bit shorter?<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... fine either way just an idea<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> TabAtkins: thought of that too but in practice authors will only specify element-scoped most of the time<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... only reason for the others is if you're purposely writing generic code to be reused in a function<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... and also if going full auto isn't good for you<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... use cases for other keywords are pretty low, can just put in --ident<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... even less typing than a scoped function<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> fantasai: +1 to TabAtkins, extra overhead of higher level syntax doesn't seem worth benefit<br>
&lt;Rossen> ack fantasai<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> Rossen: going back to TabAtkins proposal of element-scoped and property-scoped, objections?<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> RESOLVED: use element-scoped and property-scoped<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> fantasai: last one, index-scoped or property-index-scoped?<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... my suggestion was instance-scoped to keep it short?<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> Rossen: what does that mean?<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> TabAtkins: each instance of a random() in a signle property is unique<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> oriol: so instance means property+index?<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> TabAtkins: yes<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> oriol: think I prefer to be explicit, not clear you're counting those but not element<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> Rossen: what is your proposal?<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> oriol: fantasai was proposing instance-scoped which would replace property+index scoped<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... I think that using the explicit property and index scope is more clear<br>
&lt;kizu> +1 to Oriol<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> fantasai: you're saying it would be confused with element?<br>
&lt;astearns> +1 to Oriol<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> oriol: it's less straightforward what it means<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... if you see instance, what kind of instance?<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... less clear to me<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> +1 oriol<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... property + index is more straightforward<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> Rossen: taht was my question, instance of what?<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... agree with oriol as well<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... so can we go back to property index and element scoped?<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... can we resolve on this?<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> TabAtkins: my proposal for this one is property-index-scoped. you can't specify index by itself anyway<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... and I don't want to have to repeat scoped twice<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> Rossen: objections?<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> arronei: wish we could make it shorter but don't really care<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> RESOLVED: property-index-scoped for the last one<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/13601#issuecomment-4171573718 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2026 17:02:15 UTC