- From: Miriam Suzanne via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 May 2026 16:34:23 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
While I think the no-spread-by-default behavior would be more accurate to author expectations and use generally, I agree that it's weird to make this change in one place only – when we're compat-constrained in every other context. In terms of syntax, this feels like an avoidable bonus footgun on top of the existing footgun – where authors now need to learn two different solutions for managing spread in different contexts (that are otherwise designed to feel similar). One syntax is needed to _stop_ spread from happening in provided functions, and another (new) syntax is needed to _request_ spread in custom functions. I know there are also parsing advantages to the no-spread option, and I'm open to the group deciding the advantages outweigh the issues here – but I do think this is a pretty surprising lack of consistency between CSS functions and… CSS functions. -- GitHub Notification of comment by mirisuzanne Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/13927#issuecomment-4461533375 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 15 May 2026 16:34:24 UTC