- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 12:13:24 +0000
- To: TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
All, The CSSWG has requested that CSS Flexbox layout level 1 be transitioned to CR. This may provide some opportunities for semantic alignment with CSS not previously available, or we may not need it. Either way I thought it would be of interest. Nigel On 31/12/2015 00:07, "fantasai" wrote: >Hello PLH, > >This is a transition request for CSS Flexible Box Layout Level 1 to >Candidate Recommendation. > >* Document title, URIs, and estimated publication date >- CSS Flexible Box Layout Module Level 1 >- ED at http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-flexbox-1/ >- The Tuesday or Thursday after a successful transition meeting (or >decision) > >* The document Abstract and Status sections >http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-flexbox-1/#abstract >http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-flexbox-1/#status > >* Decision to request transition >RESOLVED: Take Flexbox to CR >https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Dec/0233.html > >* Changes >See http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-flexbox-1/#changes > >* Requirements satisfied >No requirements document. > >* Dependencies met (or not) >- CSS2.1 - REC >- CSS Fragmentation - CR >- CSS Cascade - CR >- CSS Images - CR >- CSS Writing Modes - CR >- CSS Values - CR >- CSS Sizing - WD (mainly for terminology) > >Non-dependent normative references: >- CSS Display - WD (point at interaction with new 'display' values >therein) >- CSS Multicol - CR (define non-interaction with multicol properties) >- CSS UI - CR (define interaction with UI's box-sizing) > >* Wide Review >The document went through a (2005 process) Last Call in 2012, >and then transitioned to CR. It was returned to LC in 2014 to >process further comments due from implementation experience >(per 2005 process rules), and cycled through three additional >LC drafts, procuring numerous comments, both on the changes >themselves and also on additional problems found. These are >documented in the corresponding Dispositions of Comments. >The rate of substantive comments has declined over the last >year, resulting in enough stability to zero out the open >issues and request a transition back to CR. > http://drafts.csswg.org/css-flexbox-1/issues-cr-2012 > http://drafts.csswg.org/css-flexbox-1/issues-lc-20140325 > http://drafts.csswg.org/css-flexbox-1/issues-lc-20140925 > http://drafts.csswg.org/css-flexbox-1/issues-lc-20150514 > >* Issues addressed >See above > >* Formal Objections >None, but see >https://drafts.csswg.org/css-flexbox/issues-lc-20150514#issue-11 >The CSSWG was unable to come to a consensus (a first in over a decade, >IIRC), >and so we followed Ralph Swick's advice to record both behaviors as >allowed, >with the hope that implementations will eventually converge and the spec >updated to match. > >* Implementation >Aside from pagination, which is reported to be pretty poor, Flexbox is >thoroughly implemented in Gecko, Blink & Webkit, Trident/Edge, and even >Presto. Bugfixes are ongoing, as implementations are not yet perfectly >compliant. > >A test suite is in development and currently has 660 tests written by >a variety of contributors. Missing tests will be added and implementations >further tested during the CR period. > >* Patent disclosures >(none) >http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/32061/status > >~fantasai > >
Received on Monday, 4 January 2016 12:13:57 UTC