Csswg-drafts: [css-2018] CSS Snapshot 2018

[svgeesus]

Looking at snapshot 2017,

A) these items were in the _rough interop_ bucket, should any get promoted to the main list? Or indeed demoted or dropped.

CSS Transitions Level 1 [CSS3-TRANSITIONS] and CSS Animations Level 1 [CSS3-ANIMATIONS]
CSS Flexible Box Module Level 1 [CSS-FLEXBOX-1]
CSS Transforms Level 1 [CSS3-TRANSFORMS]
CSS Custom Properties for Cascading Variables Module Level 1 [CSS-VARIABLES-1]
CSS Text Module Level 3 [CSS-TEXT-3]

B) these are in the _fairly stable_ bucket, should any get promoted to _rough interop_? Or indeed demoted or dropped.

CSS Counter Styles Level 3 [CSS-COUNTER-STYLES-3]
CSS Masking Level 1 [CSS-MASKING-1]
CSS Shapes Module Level 1 [CSS-SHAPES-1]
CSS Text Decoration Level 3 [CSS-TEXT-DECOR-3]
CSS Will Change Level 1 [CSS-WILL-CHANGE-1]
CSS Speech Module Level 1 [CSS3-SPEECH]
CSS Box Alignment Module Level 3 [CSS-ALIGN-3]
CSS Grid Layout Module Level 1 [CSS-GRID-1]
Filter Effects Module Level 1 [FILTER-EFFECTS-1]
CSS Fragmentation Module Level 3 [CSS-BREAK-3]

C) Are there any specs, unlisted in Snapshot 2017, which should be added to Snapshot 2018?

D) If the answers to the above are No, No and No then I believe we should set expectations and state that Snapshot 2017 applies to 2018 too. Otherwise, we should publish a Snapshot 2018 over the next few weeks.

[svgeesus]

In my opinion, there is a good case for moving Flexbox 1 and Variables 1 out of _rough interop_ into the main body of the snapshot.

I think that Grid 1 and Will Change 1 should move up to _rough interop_. CSS Speech should be dropped from the snapshot.

Interested to hear opinions in favor of other modules (or against my suggestions).

[frivoal]

@svgeesus I agree with what you said. I would also add css-contain, MQ4, and css-scroll-snap to the "have completed design work, and are fairly stable, but have not received much testing and implementation experience" list.

[svgeesus]

https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1139 and https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1867 also relevant to the creation of snapshot 2018

[dbaron]

It's worth looking at testsuite data, but some thoughts in addition to the previous comments are:

• maybe filter effects could get promoted to "rough interop"
• it's possible that grid could get promoted directly to the main list
• css-timing-1 should be included with animations and transitions since it was split from them
• things worth considering for the "fairly stable" list might be:
  
  
  
  • fonts-4
  
  
  • font-loading-3
  
  
  • ruby-3
  
  
  • color-4
  
  
  • cascade-4
  
  

[dbaron]

Also worth linking to the discussion on modules for inclusion in the 2017 snapshot: #826.

[frivoal]

This should be fixed as well before republishing: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1007 (ping @tabatkins )

[css-meeting-bot]

The Working Group just discussed CSS Snapshot 2018.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<dael> Topic: CSS Snapshot 2018

<dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2281

<dael> Chris: I listed a few things, florian added more. I'd like more discussion. diting work is small. I think we should be able to do this quickly if we can agree on in and out.

<dael> astearns: Shall we have this as a reminder to look at the thread?

<dael> Chris: Sure.

<dael> astearns: There are suggestions in the thread. If people could add their opinions perhaps we can resolve on a future call.

<dael> florian: Reminder to TabAtkins there is a bug in bikeshead or my brain and indexes aren't gen properly. Please look at that.

<dael> TabAtkins: Cool.

<dael> astearns: Hopefully we can ge tthat squared away.

[frivoal]

I have made a tentative Pull Request based on this discussion:
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/2389

I have included all the suggestions in this github issue, except for:

• fonts-4
• font-loading-3
• ruby-3
• color-4

due to the number of open issues. It's possible that many of these issues could be closed easily, or that the part of the spec with issues could be pushed to a next level leaving us with a stable core, but I didn't feel too comfortable calling specs with tens of open issues "fairly stable", even though I do agree that these specs shouldn't be too far off.

Feedback appreciated.

[svgeesus]

I checked the open issues on those specs and agree they are not ready for inclusion in this snapshot. The PR looks good and i reviewed it (but to allow others to express opinions, did not (yet) approve it). Let's agree on this by this week's call?

[css-meeting-bot]

The Working Group just discussed [css-2018] CSS Snapshot 2018.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<dael> Topic: [css-2018] CSS Snapshot 2018

<dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2281

<TabAtkins> One sec

<dael> Chris: I saw a PR with all the changes. I commented favorably but didn't approve to give time. florian anything else?

<dael> florian: I'mhappy with what I wrote and comfortable that you agree. It will not be enough to close the snapshot because there are other open questions. list of specs is done. There's a thing about indexes. Thread about if we shoudl move normative text.

<dael> Chris: That one we agreed we would. this snapshot will be a WD. When we publish next year we'll republish as a note.

<dael> florian: If we agree on PR we'll merge it. If there's other things I can agenda+ this back.

<dael> Chris: Okay

<dael> florian: Is dbaron on?

<dael> florian: You suggested some additions. I took cascade 4 but the others had too many issues for my taste. Would you like to push back?

<dael> dbaron: I think they're getting a bunch of impl. If the issues aren't getting resolved we need to deal with that.

<dael> florian: I think there is a stable core, but 50 open issues I don't feel is stable and reliable. But we should get to them. They should be on the priority list. But not on the already stable.

<dael> fantasai: Snapshot to to document wha's stable, not things that should be. If there is some thing that we need to say this is cleared to ship unprefixed in broad release as an exception we can document that spearately. THese are things that are okay to ship. Transitions, animations, and transforms have been on the list forever. THe spec isn't done.

<dael> dbaron: We should gather that list. We might need a category for things that are stable because web needs them but spec doesn't cover it yet.

<florian> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2388

<dael> florian: fantasai did open an issue about the first catagory

<dael> florian: Link ^ please look.

<dael> florian: For the other suggestion do you want an issue on that dbaron ?

<dael> dbaron: Maybe Might depend on this other issue.

<dael> florian: I'll agenda+ it now so we cycle b ack to i t.

<dael> florian: For thepull, should we merge?

<dael> Chris: I would say we should. We can always make more changes later.

<dael> astearns: Agree.

<dbaron> Yeah, +1 to merging, can change more later if needed

<dael> florian: agree

<dael> astearns: Anything more on the snapshot?

<dael> Chris: Assuming w e get linking/indexing do people want moretime to suggest or do we move toward publish?

<dael> florian: I'd like a resolution to fantasai 's issue but then we can move to first public.

<dael> astearns: let's go back to issue #2388 on a future week.

<dael> florian: Sounds good