- From: Shane Stephens <shans@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:43:59 +0000
- To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAGTfzwTP6Bm2yxOCOZ4HDZdio8ujO6i-wFDTHSUGaLUuX4CD8w@mail.gmail.com>
Hi list, We resolved during the F2F in San Francisco to rename motion-* to offset-*. During the F2F in Lisbon, the issue of a collision with the logical properties ED was raised (offset-inline-start, offset-inline-end, offset-block-start, offset-block-end). We decided to rename offset-inline-* and offset-block-* as nobody was shipping them yet. Yesterday, we learned that Firefox has actually shipped these properties ( https://github.com/w3c/fxtf-drafts/issues/51) and even discussed this with the WG during a telecon ( https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Jul/0040.html). I'm left wondering what to do. Our usage counters show that motion-* is enjoying an increasing level of usage. We have a rename ready to go (and we've reached out to some of the bigger users to prepare them for it), but now I don't see how we can legitimately rename without an assurance from Firefox that they're happy to deal with the fallout when the WG renames the offset-inline-* and offset-block-* properties. On the other hand, if we don't rename now, we're exposing ourselves to a significant risk that we will need to maintain legacy motion-* names. At this point I'm reluctant to expose us to that risk given that it could have been avoided entirely if the issue of already-shipped conflicting names had been brought up at either F2F. Note that this is a *shared risk*, not just a risk to Chrome, as if we are forced to maintain the aliases there's a likelihood that you will all need to implement them too. I think there are three viable options. I'd really like to get a sense for the appetite of the WG towards: (1) renaming offset-inline-* and offset-block-* from the logical properties ED, given that Firefox has shipped them (2) sticking with the (imperfect) motion-* names from the motion path WD, given that Chrome has shipped them (3) choosing a new, non-conflicting name for motion-* RealSoonNow so that we can switch to that instead. Thoughts? Thanks, -Shane
Received on Friday, 30 September 2016 00:44:38 UTC