W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2016

Re: [css-display] FYI: Gecko Intent to ship CSS display:flow-root

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 21:30:26 +0330
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Mats Palmgren <mats@mozilla.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Jet Villegas <jet@mozilla.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Message-ID: <a42f325e-f9e0-e55f-aef8-a609aabc8a21@inkedblade.net>
On 12/23/2016 02:53 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Mats Palmgren <mats@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> Just wanted to make this known more widely, in case there is
>> any concern about this feature.
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform/bG9Kpgr5LC4
> Thanks for the notice! That feature is stable design-wise (that is,
> fantasai and I don't have any additional work to do to it based purely
> on theoretical design work).  We'd love to see y'all's input on
> implementation and results in practice!

That said, I'd love to see you all at least *ask* us to officially
stabilize specs you're planning to ship before announcing that
you're going to do it anyway. That'd give us an opportunity to get
ahead of things by publishing a CR, or at least clearing the feature
with the rest of the CSSWG with an explicit OK-to-ship resolution
while the spec process catches up.


We have a policy about this, and it exists because the editors of
a draft don't always have the definitive answers.* But we can't
even try to implement it if implementers aren't also on board with
communicating their plans and requesting appropriate prioritization
from the CSSWG.

Mozilla's developers are historically *very good* at giving feedback
and working constructively with the standards process. I really
appreciate this, and I don't want to lose it. I know we don't always
manage to stay on top of everything requested, but I want to have the
opportunity to try.

I also don't want people to assume that Tab or I are a substitute for
the CSSWG as a whole, because we're not. :)

In this case, I think we can easily transition a trimmed down version
of Display in January. It would help to know which of its features
Mozilla has or is planning to implement, and if there are any known
spec issues with those features.

* See e.g. Blink's adventures in shipping the Motion based solely on
its having reached FPWD; or Mozilla's adventures in scroll-snapping,
making the assumption that the editor ignoring roc's feedback meant
the CSSWG as a whole wasn't going to address it either.

Received on Friday, 23 December 2016 18:01:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:05 UTC