Wait no, these should be LGTM2 and LGTM3 On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 6:35 PM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote:
> LGTM2 > > On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 6:34 PM Vladimir Levin <vmp...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >> CSSWG resolved on this issue >> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10982#issuecomment-2898572289 >> I believe this aligns with option 2 in Yoav's reply. >> >> LGTM1 >> >> Thanks, >> Vlad >> On Wednesday, May 21, 2025 at 3:48:18 AM UTC-4 Rune Lillesveen wrote: >> >>> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 1:38 PM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < >>> yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 1:32 PM Rune Lillesveen <futh...@chromium.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 10:47 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < >>>>> yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 6:10 PM Philip Jägenstedt < >>>>>> foo...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 5:21 PM Rune Lillesveen < >>>>>>> futh...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 9:20 AM Rune Lillesveen < >>>>>>>> futh...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 8:34 AM Rune Lillesveen < >>>>>>>>> futh...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 7:43 AM Domenic Denicola < >>>>>>>>>> dome...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm very slightly worried about the cases which we seem to >>>>>>>>>>> accept, but the latest on the CSSWG thread suggests we should >>>>>>>>>>> disallow. >>>>>>>>>>> Namely, @container and @page. How sure are you that changing those >>>>>>>>>>> to be >>>>>>>>>>> invalid in the future, to follow the latest CSSWG decisions, will >>>>>>>>>>> not cause >>>>>>>>>>> compat problems? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For @page, I wouldn't be worried at all. It's unlikely someone >>>>>>>>>> will start using the feature and rely on a constant >>>>>>>>>> sibling-index()/sibling-count() in @page. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For @container, I agree that it's safer to be conservative and >>>>>>>>>> wait for the resolution, since for @container there are clear use >>>>>>>>>> cases and >>>>>>>>>> and a more or less obvious behavior in that context. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some more details below. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For @container, this is relevant for size queries and style() >>>>>>>>> queries. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Size queries are currently always evaluated in an element context, >>>>>>>>> although falling back to viewport has been discussed, and container >>>>>>>>> units >>>>>>>>> fall back to small viewport units. Relative units (like ems below) are >>>>>>>>> evaluated against the computed values of the container element: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> @container (width > calc(sibling-index() * 50px)) {} >>>>>>>>> @container (width > 10em)) {} >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For style queries, the right hand of the query is evaluated >>>>>>>>> against the container element and its computed styles for registered >>>>>>>>> custom >>>>>>>>> properties. Note that for non-registered custom properties, >>>>>>>>> sibling-index() >>>>>>>>> would just be part of the string/tokens without any specific meaning. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think it would be inconsistent to reference relative units (like >>>>>>>>> em below) and resolve custom properties references (like var(--a) >>>>>>>>> below), >>>>>>>>> but specifically throw away sibling-index() when evaluating the value >>>>>>>>> against the registered syntax: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> @container style(--registered-length: calc(sibling-index() * >>>>>>>>> 20px)) {} >>>>>>>>> @container style(--registered-length: 10em) {} >>>>>>>>> @container style(--registered-length: var(--a)) {} >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'll make my position clearer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think we should ship with support for tree counting functions >>>>>>>> in @container because >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. @container queries are currently always in a (container) element >>>>>>>> context and there are valid use cases >>>>>>>> 2. Supporting tree counting functions in @container does not break >>>>>>>> with the current spec >>>>>>>> 3. I don't think it's likely there will be a resolution that >>>>>>>> disallows tree counting functions in @container >>>>>>>> 4. In particular, disallowing tree counting functions in style() >>>>>>>> queries would be inconsistent with e.g. relative units >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am recused on this one, but FWIW I agree with this reasoning. >>>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10982 is already Agenda+ >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> When is the discussion scheduled to take place? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I added Agenda+ in March, but haven't pushed hard. Asked the chairs to >>>>> put it on the agenda now. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> and if we're confident the right solution is to match how relative >>>>>>> units, then we can proceed. Rune pointed out that it's already tested >>>>>>> here: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://wpt.fyi/results/css/css-values/tree-counting/sibling-function-container-query.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To ship without this behavior only to add it a few milestones later >>>>>>> would complicate the browser support story and require explanation on >>>>>>> places like MDN and caniuse.com. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In case the CSSWG decision is made before 138 ships to stable and it >>>>>> does not align with what you're proposing we ship, are you OK with >>>>>> disabling the feature using its Finch flag? Or should we put @container >>>>>> support behind a separate flag? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Adding a separate flag for @container here: >>>>> >>>>> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/6563296 >>>>> >>>>> I'm fine with shipping support in @container later in a separate >>>>> intent, when the issue is resolved, too. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think we have two options: >>>> 1. Ship @container separately, incurring the costs Philip mentioned >>>> (complex support grids, wonky feature detection (do we have a proper story >>>> for that?), etc) >>>> 2. Optimistically ship everything and hope that the resolution would >>>> match what we're trying to ship. In case it won't, we reverse course. >>>> >>>> I prefer (2), and depending on the answer to my feature detection >>>> question, it might be better to keep a single flag and ensure the feature >>>> either ships or doesn't in its entirety. >>>> >>>> WDYT? Does (2) seem like a reasonable risk to take? >>>> It does assume that the discussion will happen before 138 hits stable >>>> though.. >>>> >>> >>> Yes. The issue is now also the second item on the agenda for the CSSWG >>> call tonight, so we'd hopefully have a resolution one way or the other. >>> >>> -- >>> Rune Lillesveen >>> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAOmohSJjw6XhrTDTrr%2B2BZ7iZszLrt98W8UytPkiMGwVBFHvPg%40mail.gmail.com.
