LGTM3
On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 9:00 PM Stephen Chenney
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 6:36 PM Stephen Chenney
> wrote:
>
>> I would like to re-start this review. The spec PR is still waiting due a
>> third party dependency. I'm in contact with that party to move it along.
>
>
> The spec PR has
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 6:36 PM Stephen Chenney
wrote:
> I would like to re-start this review. The spec PR is still waiting due a
> third party dependency. I'm in contact with that party to move it along.
The spec PR has been merged.
Mozilla's position is addressed apart from the concerns abou
I would like to re-start this review. The spec PR is still waiting due a
third party dependency. I'm in contact with that party to move it along.
Mozilla's position is addressed apart from the concerns about
accessibility, and a request to clarify some caret-color behavior which is
unrelated to
Yes Domenic, the PR to clarify when caret- properties apply would address
my questions and at least one of Mozilla's concerns. The CSS F2F this week
is set to discuss the PR and get agreement that it conveys the expectations
of developers. So by Friday we should have enough to know if this can mov
It looks like on ChromeStatus there was a request to reactivate this review.
Can you clarify what is
preventing https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/11373 from landing? Do
you believe it addresses all of Mozilla's concerns? (And your concerns?)
On Thursday, October 31, 2024 at 12:30:37 AM U
Putting it back in dev trials mode SGTM.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 11:29 AM Stephen Chenney
wrote:
> The Mozilla folks have some good points that I believe should go back to
> the CSS WG, particularly the a11y concerns. I'll put some thought into
> concrete proposals and open up spec issues.
>
> I
The Mozilla folks have some good points that I believe should go back to
the CSS WG, particularly the a11y concerns. I'll put some thought into
concrete proposals and open up spec issues.
I think shipping is blocked until there is broader browser agreement. Is it
OK if I shift the status back to "
Hi,
I see there was some discussion on the Mozilla standards position with some
possible open questions about a11y aspects. Would you consider any of them
blocking or needing further work?
On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 9:18 AM Stephen Chenney
wrote:
> Thanks. WPT issue at
> https://github.com/web-pla
Thanks. WPT issue at https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/issues/48882
On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 6:12 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) <
yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote:
> LGTM2
>
> It's unfortunate that we can't reliably WPT test this, but I don't think
> it should be a blocker. Can you file an issue a
LGTM2
It's unfortunate that we can't reliably WPT test this, but I don't think it
should be a blocker. Can you file an issue against WPT to let folks know
that this is not WPT testable today (without flakiness)?
On Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 2:39:34 AM UTC+2 Stephen Chenney wrote:
> I've li
I've linked the WPT test for the style code into the status entry and
updated the test situation. While I could write a rendering test that
worked locally it relies on the caret blinking in web_tests, which is
disabled as a flakiness mitigation. I think it's unwise to try to change
that given the v
Great. Could you link to the WPT tests also?
Also, FTR: I think this is small enough that an independent TAG review is
not necessary.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 9:13 AM Stephen Chenney
wrote:
> Thanks for the review.
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 11:24 AM Chris Harrelson
> wrote:
>
>> Could you ple
Thanks for the review.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 11:24 AM Chris Harrelson
wrote:
> Could you please file formal positions requests for Mozilal and Apple?
>
Filed https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/417 and
https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1100
> Also, CSSWG
Could you please file formal positions requests for Mozilal and Apple?
Also, CSSWG issue 9707 is still open, why is that?
On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 8:21 AM Alex Russell
wrote:
> Thanks for the detail! LGTM1
>
> On Saturday, October 12, 2024 at 7:19:06 PM UTC+5:30 Stephen Chenney wrote:
>
>> On Fr
Thanks for the detail! LGTM1
On Saturday, October 12, 2024 at 7:19:06 PM UTC+5:30 Stephen Chenney wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 2:23 PM Alex Russell
> wrote:
>
>> Is Apple is pushing back on caret animation for battery life reasons? Do
>> we share that concern?
>
>
> Fortunately not. The is
On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 2:23 PM Alex Russell
wrote:
> Is Apple is pushing back on caret animation for battery life reasons? Do
> we share that concern?
Fortunately not. The issue for Safari is that they render the caret in a
way that defies customization. In the CSS WG discussion the Apple folk
Is Apple is pushing back on caret animation for battery life reasons? Do we
share that concern?
Best,
Alex
On Thursday, October 10, 2024 at 6:17:12 AM UTC-7 Chromestatus wrote:
> Contact emails schen...@chromium.org
>
> Explainer https://drafts.csswg.org/css-ui/#caret-animation
> https://git
17 matches
Mail list logo
