- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2026 16:00:38 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-backgrounds][css-animations] Should background-* and animation-* longhands computed values serialize using the same truncation rules?`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: no change, update WPT to match the spec's expectations and see if there's web compat issues` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <ydaniv> weinig: this is about whether compat will hold up here, animations/background longhands are coordinated lists<br> <ydaniv> ... wanted to know if we want to resolve on compat serializations<br> <ydaniv> TabAtkins: in one of the properties having one tramps the others, in the other it's not<br> <ydaniv> ... I just care about having a consistent behavior<br> <ydaniv> weinig: not sure even all browsers do that, it's just what WPT test<br> <ydaniv> ... should be as round-trippable as possible<br> <ydaniv> ... I would be sticking with what the spec says should be correct<br> <ydaniv> emilio: seems FF is already doing that<br> <ydaniv> ... so probably compatible<br> <emilio> https://wpt.fyi/results/css/css-backgrounds/parsing/background-repeat-computed.html<br> <ydaniv> weinig: ok, thanks<br> <astearns> ack fantasai<br> <ydaniv> fantasai: I support what TabAtkins said, don't have opinion on which way<br> <ydaniv> ... backgrounds is a canonical example for this<br> <ydaniv> weinig: I think background is the one where it does not match the spec's behavior<br> <ydaniv> ... but in FF seems ok<br> <astearns> ack dbaron<br> <fantasai> s/this/coordinating list property group, spec doesn't use the term because it predates the term/<br> <ydaniv> dbaron: one thing that can happen, gCS and computed value are different things<br> <emilio> q+<br> <fantasai> s/on which way/on which way as long as Web-compatible/<br> <ydaniv> ... I would not like the truncation to be different, but it is today in some implementations so should be careful<br> <ydaniv> ... I think my prefs aggree with weinig, so that both computed value and gCS return the same value<br> <emilio> q-<br> <ydaniv> weinig: they should likely match, and I'll ensure on WPT we have something we're explicitly testing<br> <ydaniv> dbaron: there were some implementations that did weird thing to the computed value, don't know if these are still around today<br> <ydaniv> astearns: should we resovle on what we wish to see? and look for compat concerns? Or make smaller viable changes?<br> <ydaniv> weinig: this mostly comes down to changing background and mask-image in WK and CH, and update tests<br> <ydaniv> ... probably tests first<br> <ydaniv> astearns: updating the tests makes sense if we updated spec<br> <ydaniv> weinig: the spec is correct<br> <astearns> ack dbaron<br> <ydaniv> dbaron: side comment, if we do find a compat problem here, I'd like to keep the background and mask matching, then to try and make them match others<br> <fantasai> +1 dbaron<br> <ydaniv> +1 dbaron<br> <ydaniv> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: no change, update WPT to match the spec's expectations and see if there's web compat issues<br> <ydaniv> astearns: obejctions?<br> <ydaniv> RESOLVED: no change, update WPT to match the spec's expectations and see if there's web compat issues<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12791#issuecomment-4040285092 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2026 16:00:39 UTC