- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2026 16:17:25 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[cssom-2] Start CSSOM 2`. <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <ydaniv> SebastianZ: the CSSOM spec seems to be a bit special, as it's treated as a living spec<br> <ydaniv> ... we should consider doing a feature freeze, and move it to CR or make progress in that direction<br> <emilio> q+<br> <ydaniv> astearns: yes we have, so I don't know if it's necessary to move it further on the track, but not against<br> <astearns> ack florian<br> <astearns> ack fantasai<br> <ydaniv> fantasai: I think that spec hasn't had any intense editing<br> <astearns> ack emilio<br> <ydaniv> emilio: from the POV of maintaining the spec, it's on me as editor, not sure splitting is easier, would prefer it would be a single thing we edit, keep everything in one place, not sure how...<br> <astearns> ack fantasai<br> <ydaniv> fantasai: the spec had intense editing, going to CR would need time commitement from someone to go over it, check compat, fully specified, etc.<br> <ydaniv> ... we need to make sure it's solid, I think it's better to keep it as a single spec<br> <ydaniv> ... we could do more work when someone is committed<br> <ydaniv> ... there's no natural way to beak down features in it<br> <ydaniv> ... I would live it to have a core spec stabilized and move to CR<br> <emilio> q+<br> <ydaniv> ... but we don't have a core that is that solid, so not sure it makes sense to split now<br> <SebastianZ> q+<br> <astearns> ack emilio<br> <ydaniv> emilio: now that you mention CSSOM view, I don't remember to have the reason to have it separated, don't think there's a reason for more editors<br> <ydaniv> ... at end of day, it's a bunch of assorted things exported to JS<br> <ydaniv> s/exported/exposed/<br> <ydaniv> astearns: I think a reason to split is we have different ppl intereseted in different things<br> <astearns> ack SebastianZ<br> <fantasai> s/spec had intense editing/spec needs intense editing/<br> <ydaniv> SebastianZ: wanted to same stuff, that merging those specs would make it harder to find editors<br> <ydaniv> ... hence wanted to also suggest adding more editors to CSSOM-view<br> <ydaniv> ... another thing is that geometry-1 is heading in that direction, ppl are adding issues, and some of it should go there<br> <ydaniv> astearns: let's table all the merging disucssions for now, let's leave it to editor's discretion on whether to move on on the track<br> <ydaniv> ... is there anyone who would like to help emilio to edit CSSOM?<br> <ydaniv> SebastianZ: if nobody can be found I can step up but already have a lot<br> <emilio> q+<br> <ydaniv> ... my suggest to split the spec is also that it will always stay draft and we won't know what's stable and what's not<br> <astearns> ack emilio<br> <ydaniv> ... that's my main reason to make a cut at some point, when it's stable enough<br> <ydaniv> emilio: doing the split eagerly is somthing I rather not do for now<br> <ydaniv> ... without having a list of things we want to level 1, and stuff for level 2 then it's not worth splitting<br> <ydaniv> astearns: let's leave it for now, and I'll send an email asking for ppl to step up<br> <ydaniv> SebastianZ: fine by me<br> <ydaniv> fantasai: we could list stuff we thing is lvl1 and lvl 2<br> <ydaniv> emilio: that's seems good<br> <fantasai> in an appendix<br> <ydaniv> SebastianZ: I could add WPT coverage, to see what's stable and what's not<br> <ydaniv> fantasai: not sure that's a good way to check that<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10686#issuecomment-3885471041 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2026 16:17:26 UTC