[w3ctag/design-reviews] Other Spec Review: named-feature() function for CSS @supports (Issue #1186)

dbaron created an issue (w3ctag/design-reviews#1186)

### Specification

https://drafts.csswg.org/css-conditional-5/#typedef-supports-named-feature-fn

### Explainer

https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/blob/main/css-conditional-5/named-feature-explainer.md

### Links

- Previous early design review, if any: N/A
- An introduction to the feature, aimed at unfamiliar audiences: see [introduction](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/blob/main/css-conditional-5/named-feature-explainer.md#introduction) to explainer
- A description of the problems that end-users were facing before this proposal: see [introduction](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/blob/main/css-conditional-5/named-feature-explainer.md#introduction) to explainer.  (This is a little bit meta:  it's about helping users get the benefits of *other* new CSS features sooner, in cases where there's a graceful degradation path for the lack of those features.)
- Alternatives considered: see [alternatives considered section](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/blob/main/css-conditional-5/named-feature-explainer.md#alternatives-considered) of explainer
- Examples of how to use the proposal to solve the end-users' problems: see [proposed approach](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/blob/main/css-conditional-5/named-feature-explainer.md#proposed-approach) section of explainer
- What do the end-users experience with this proposal: This helps end users get the benefits of *other* CSS features sooner, in cases where there is a graceful degradation path for implementations that lack the feature.
- User research you did to validate the problem and/or design, if any: None
- Web Platform Tests:  None yet


### The specification

- [x] Follows the [Web Platform Design Principles](https://www.w3.org/TR/design-principles/).
- [ ] Includes Security and Privacy Considerations sections based on answers to the [Security/Privacy Questionnaire](https://www.w3.org/TR/security-privacy-questionnaire/).

### Where and by whom is the work is being done?

- GitHub repo: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/
- Primary contacts:
  - L. David Baron (@dbaron), Google, feature proposer and spec co-editor
  - Alan Stearns (@astearns), WG co-chair
- Organization/project driving the specification: Google
- This work is being funded by: Google
- Primary standards group developing this feature: CSS Working Group
- Group intended to standardize this work: CSS Working Group
- Incubation and standards groups that have discussed the design:
  - https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3559
  - https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9875

### Feedback so far

- Multi-stakeholder feedback:
  - Chromium comments: Support, https://chromestatus.com/feature/5153932394102784
  - Mozilla comments: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1340
  - WebKit comments: https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/600
  - a bit of developer feedback in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3559
- Major unresolved issues with or opposition to this specification:
  - Some people still want a general combinatoric feature detection mechanism, but I don't think that's practical
- Status/issue trackers for implementations:
  - https://chromestatus.com/feature/5153932394102784

### You should also know that...

_No response_

<!-- Content below this is maintained by @w3c-tag-bot -->
---

Track conversations at https://tag-github-bot.w3.org/gh/w3ctag/design-reviews/1186


-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1186
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1186@github.com>