- From: Dael Jackson <[email protected]>
- Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2025 18:55:23 -0400
- To: [email protected]
========================================= These are the official CSSWG minutes. Unless you're correcting the minutes, please respond by starting a new thread with an appropriate subject line. ========================================= CSS Snapshot 2025 Breakout -------------------------- - RESOLVED: Publish CSS 2025 as a Note once all edits from this meeting are in (Issue #12715: Publish Snapshot as Group Note) - RESOLVED: Move cascade-5 to the Reliable CR section (Issue #12702: Add CSS Cascade 5 to Reliable CRs) - RESOLVED: Move css-color-adjust-1 to Reliable CR section (Issue #12692: Add CSS Color Adjust 1 to Reliable CRs) - RESOLVED: css-conditional-4 to Reliable CR section (Issue #12694: Add CSS Conditional 4 to Reliable CRs) - RESOLVED: Close, no change (Issue #12697: Add CSS Shapes 1 to Reliable CRs) - The group will come back to issue #12691 (Add CSS Will Change 1 to Reliable CRs) after folks have had a chance to review the current open issues list. - RESOLVED: Close, no change (Issue #12712: Add Media Queries 5 to Rough Interop) - RESOLVED: Publish new WD of css-nesting (Issue #12704: Add CSS Nesting 1 to Rough Interop) - Prior to resolving on issue #12711 (Add CSSOM View 1 to Rough Interop) republishing CSSOM View will be brought to the wider group. - CSS Overscroll needs an active editor before the group can decide on issue #12701 (Add CSS Overscroll 1 to Rough Interop). ===== FULL MEETING MINUTES ====== Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2025JulSep/0180.html Present: Tab Atkins-Bittner Keith Cirkel Elika Etemad Chris Lilley Eric Meyer Florian Rivoal Alan Stearns Sebastian Zartner Scribe: emeyer CSS Snapshot 2025 ================== Publish Snapshot as Group Note ------------------------------ github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12715 astearns: Proposal is that once all edits agreed upon today are in, we publish <ChrisL> +1 (no objections) <fantasai> We can always make changes and republish. astearns: We are resolved RESOLVED: Publish CSS 2025 as a Note once all edits from this meeting are in Add CSS Cascade 5 to Reliable CRs --------------------------------- github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12702 SebastianZ: As a disclaimer, in all issues I summarized all the details I could find regarding the specs SebastianZ: so it should be relatively easy to resolve on adding or not adding specs to the snapshot ChrisL: I'd like to see us publish a CRD but that's separate SebastianZ: There are 22 open issues but only about 5 of them are substantial to the spec level SebastianZ: the rest are editorial or could be deferred <ChrisL> I think this should be in Reliable CR fantasai: This makes sense; I do think we should keep track of the specs that need to be republished and get them out with the snapshot astearns: Agreed, it would be good to keep things in sync, but not that concerned about the snapshot Note saying it's a reliable CR and updating the CR when we can ChrisL: If we're reasonably up to date, I don't want to wait until every single thing that could be republished has been astearns: Proposed resolution is to move cascade-5 to reliable CR section RESOLVED: move cascade-5 to the Reliable CR section <fantasai> Can we also get a resolution to republish the CRD ChrisL: I'll nag people as required <fantasai> sgtm, looking fwd to nagging astearns: Elika, I'll follow up on publishing the CRD Add CSS Color Adjust 1 to Reliable CRs -------------------------------------- github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12692 SebastianZ: we have good platform test coverage of this, especially for Chrome/Edge/Firefox SebastianZ: not too many open GitHub issues, proposing to move to Reliable CR astearns: Any concerns? RESOLVED: move css-color-adjust-1 to Reliable CR section Add CSS Conditional 4 to Reliable CRs ------------------------------------- github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12694 SebastianZ: this doesn't have a very high interop (82%) but only has a few open issues on the spec SebastianZ: question is, what's the threshold to moving to reliable CR ChrisL: We should look at only this level of the spec and tests; there are only 41 tests fantasai: An original goal for Reliable CR is to distinguish “this is almost a rec but we didn't get close enough” astearns: It is a good question to ask what the interop threshold should be — 80%, 90%, a particular number of tests? fantasai: I don't think percentages work, because sometimes they're mostly parsing tests and may not fail when the spec isn't supported and don't say what's actually failing <ChrisL> 35 × 100 ÷ 41 = 85.3658536585 fantasai: what you're looking for is, “Is this really close to being a recommendation but there are a few remaining bugs or well-understood minor issues?” fantasai: Has it been getting enough attention that bugs are likely to be found? Or is it a mostly-ignored spec? fantasai: When you have a lot of passing tests AND you know the feature is well-implemented across at least two implementations, that's good fantasai: Just looking at test numbers may not tell you what you need fantasai: Layers is one where I'd expect good numbers to be a high signal, but for layout you may have a lot of processing tests but not many rendering tests <fantasai> or things like media queries or ui stuff, where you're more likely to have extensive processing tests than behavior tests florian: I think you may have mixed up categories a bit florian: I think we tend to be fuzzy about which level is for what, which isn't a great thing fantasai: I think in 2.2, we said “spec is stable, implementations aren't there yet” fantasai: if I look at media queries, grid 1 & 2, those are stable specs with hardly any changes and they haven't made it up to the main thing because the implementations aren't there fantasai: the main definition “these are practically Rec and we haven't done the QA work to verify” fantasai: “Reliable” is for “specs that are implemented with bugs or holes in test suites but very stable specs” <ChrisL> A CSS processor is considered to support a CSS selector if it accepts that all aspects of that selector, recursively, (rather than considering any of its syntax to be unknown or invalid) and that selector doesn't contain unknown -webkit- pseudo-elements. ChrisL: This was all nice theoretical stuff, but I want to come back to the spec ChrisL: ever since we started the spec, this hasn't changed and it won't change ChrisL: that's why 41 tests is reasonable for that sentence ChrisL: so I propose moving this forward to Reliable CR <fantasai> wfm RESOLVED: css-conditional-for to Reliable CR section Add CSS Shapes 1 to Reliable CRs -------------------------------- github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12697 SebastianZ: Didn't dive too deep into test coverage SebastianZ: CSS Shapes is in good shape! SebastianZ: We have 86% interop in Chrome and Firefox, around 20 GH issues and none on the spec SebastianZ: Propose to add to Reliable CR ChrisL: I'm less convinced about this, and I think it should be in Rough Interop florian: I suspect I agree fantasai: We did just recently add 'shape()' and it hasn't even been stabilized six months fantasai: This kind of has two statuses because parts have been supported forever, and parts barely at all SebastianZ: In rough interop, or not at all? SebastianZ: It's currently in “Fairly Stable” florian: We do have more than limited experience for some parts SebastianZ: It was added here a few snapshots ago ChrisL: Before we made it unstable SebastianZ: Exactly SebastianZ: We could move Shape to the next level if we think it's not stable enough astearns: I'm inclined to leave it in Fairly Stable astearns: yes, we've been adding new things and they don't have much implementation, but they've been added to the draft with tests SebastianZ: Test coverage for shape() is actually quite good SebastianZ: Firefox lacks support astearns: I heard reservations about moving to Reliable CR; is everyone okay with no change, or pushing it down to Rough Interop? florian: I support no change <fantasai> But come back to it next year maybe! <fantasai> +1 RESOLVED: close, no change Add CSS Will Change 1 to Reliable CRs ------------------------------------- github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12691 SebastianZ: will-change has very high interop in main engines; 12 open issues, with 8 substantial, zero open issues in the spec SebastianZ: propose to move to Reliable CR florian: I suspect that's possible but I'm concerned that it's under-maintained because it hasn't been looked at in a while florian: We haven't been actively thinking about the open issues florian: Would like assurance from someone who's worked on this more directly astearns: I'm concerned about the number of issues, but not having looked at them, I don't know if they're for the next level or not florian: Skimming, some seem like interop, but there might be de facto interop florian: We could probably get there, but not having looked at the spec in three years, I don't know how much effort it would take to find out astearns: Shall we close no change? florian: Can we punt and come back when Tab can give input? florian: The ED is as old as the TR draft <TabAtkins> Note: I cannot answer those questions right now, it's been a few years since I've had to work on it. astearns: Let's take no resolution and come back to it SebastianZ: That works for me Add Media Queries 5 to Rough Interop ------------------------------------ github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12712 ChrisL: We have a long list of editors and not sure how many are real <TabAtkins> yeah that's just me and florian, then florian: I'm no longer funded to work on this, so I'm real but not active SebastianZ: test coverage is at 81%; a lot of open issues, with about 50 substantial to the spec level; 10 within the spec SebastianZ: some WPTs are still missing, but the important ones are there SebastianZ: not all features are supported by all browsers, but the main ones are SebastianZ: it could be the whole spec goes to Rough Interop, or we could break things down by feature ChrisL: This is a case where because the spec doesn't have inline WPT annotations, it's hard to know what's tested/implemented and which not ChrisL: I suspect there are some that are very widely supported, and some not <TabAtkins> Agree, I think this would both benefit from inline wpt, and be appropriate for cherry-picking florian: I agree, and also some features are very hard to test florian: All browsers are able to parse the thing and respond, but you can't always tell if they do the right thing florian: We probably need to do a slow walk through here to figure out which things are supported and which are not florian: Stuff like environment blending probably not well supported SebastianZ: Sounds like I should take these back and propose specific features to go to the safe section florian: Agreed florian: Want to also ask what we do about media-queries-4 florian: I don't know if we have figured out how to test if the right behavior is happening florian: We haven't really done anything with this in a long time and that's not good florian: I don't think the tests are good enough SebastianZ: The next section for level 4? florian: I think it's probably ready, but we haven't checked if browsers are doing what they should ChrisL: This is work later in the year, not for the snapshot astearns: Luke Warlow is listed as an editor for level 5 astearns: Maybe Luke could work on tests for level 5, or have ideas on how they could be tested florian: We have to think it through as a group astearns: Do we leave open, or close no change? florian: I think close no change, with an action on SebastianZ to triage issues SebastianZ: Agreed RESOLVED: close, no change Add CSS Nesting 1 to Rough Interop ---------------------------------- github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12704 SebastianZ: Not many tests, but the tests are quite interoperable (96%) SebastianZ: Still a lot of issues; 23 on GitHub and 2 in the spec SebastianZ: I think it should go to Rough Interop astearns: We already resolved to do that, as you noted ChrisL: Did we resolve to republish, because if so I can just get on with it SebastianZ: I don't think so astearns: I don't think we ever took a resolution to republish nesting ChrisL: Could we? TabAtkins: I think we should TabAtkins: any changes we made since last publication should be reflected; we should republish astearns: Has any work been done on auto-publishing? TabAtkins: No, but I could try it on this RESOLVED: publish new WD of css-nesting Add CSSOM View 1 to Rough Interop --------------------------------- github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12711 SebastianZ: Doesn't have high interop between all engines, but between Chrome and Firefox is close to 90% SebastianZ: 161 GitHub issues, 7 spec issues SebastianZ: I thought it was worth adding to Rough Interop with one note that the WD is very old and needs a new WD SebastianZ: last edits are from last month SebastianZ: Over the years there were many small and big changes, but never a new WD astearns: I suspect this is one where we don't want it in the snapshot until we get a new draft florian: This one isn't as much about the spec and more about the features florian: For Rough interop, it seems like enough astearns: Fair enough SebastianZ: I didn't get into spec details, so it's possible some features are not covered ChrisL: The Changes section has a lot of update, so I think it's worth asking the editors if it's ready to be published florian: Definitely want the editors' opinions on what to do astearns: SebastianZ, you said there may be an issue about publishing a new WD, have you found it? <SebastianZ> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8559 SebastianZ: I opened one two years ago. astearns: I'll get this on the agenda Add CSS Overscroll 1 to Rough Interop ------------------------------------- github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12701 SebastianZ: we're at 91% interop, though only a few tests SebastianZ: 10 issues on GitHub, none on the spec SebastianZ: Given overscroll has few features, the tests seem to cover a lot SebastianZ: The published WD is from 2019 astearns: And the editor is no longer a member of the WG ChrisL: I see two editors, one from Facebook. astearns: Who is also not a member astearns: I think this is another where we need to figure out if we can republish, and also add an editor who's part of the group astearns: only then can we consider whether it's viable for a snapshot
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2025 22:55:57 UTC