LGTM3
/Daniel
On 2025-04-09 17:14, 'Dan Clark' via blink-dev wrote:
LGTM2
On Wednesday, April 9, 2025 at 8:09:13 AM UTC-7 sligh...@chromium.org
wrote:
LGTM1
On Friday, April 4, 2025 at 4:15:14 AM UTC-7 moo...@google.com wrote:
Does our implementation match these new ed
LGTM1
On Friday, April 4, 2025 at 4:15:14 AM UTC-7 moo...@google.com wrote:
> Does our implementation match these new edits?
>
>
> Generally yes, there are some thing that are not implemented yet, like
> spread syntax (spec link
> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values-5/#early-resolution), but th
LGTM2
On Wednesday, April 9, 2025 at 8:09:13 AM UTC-7 sligh...@chromium.org wrote:
> LGTM1
>
> On Friday, April 4, 2025 at 4:15:14 AM UTC-7 moo...@google.com wrote:
>
>> Does our implementation match these new edits?
>>
>>
>> Generally yes, there are some thing that are not implemented yet, like
>
> Does our implementation match these new edits?
Generally yes, there are some thing that are not implemented yet, like
spread syntax (spec link
https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values-5/#early-resolution), but this is more
like a separate projects rather than part of if() function implementation
s
Does our implementation match these new edits?
On 3/26/25 11:32 AM, 'Munira Tursunova' via blink-dev wrote:
Thank you for your replies.
Some of these changes (which are somewhat significant) have been
discussed last week, like [1] for a
concrete example, and the spec hasn't even b
Thank you for your replies.
Some of these changes (which are somewhat significant) have been discussed
> last week, like [1] for a
> concrete example, and the spec hasn't even been updated yet...
> [1]: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/11500
Tab landed spec edits for that:
https://gi
Will second the thanks, Emilio, but will reiterate that Blink's test here
isn't WG consensus, but rather web developer feedback. If there's concern
among developers that this proposal isn't on the right trajectory, would be
good to hear that now.
Best,
Alex
On Friday, February 28, 2025 at 1:1
Alex,
I trimmed down the quote reply below to point out that Emilio is asking for
more web developer feedback. That will take time to get as authors
experiment with the prototype.
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 11:10 AM Alex Russell
wrote:
> Will second the thanks, Emilio, but will reiterate that Blin
I appreciate your perspective on this, Emilio. I don't understand the
norms around comments in the Mozilla standards-position repo (but have
noticed that many position requests go unanswered as of late), but even
informal comments like this are helpful (to me at least) when evaluating
new featu
From the WG discussions, I don't think anyone on the working group
objects to these in principle (can't authoritatively speak for WebKit of
course, and I can try to get to that standards-position if you think
it's urgent).
However I do think it might be wise to let authors and other CSS expert
Thanks for the feedback, Alan.
Worth noting that the Mozilla and WebKit position requests have been
open for 1 month, which seems to me to be a reasonable amount of time
for them to register concerns. Same goes for TAG, but there are initial
positive signals at
https://github.com/w3ctag/desig
This is a feature that is greatly desired by developers, and as such runs
increased risk that whatever gets shipped first gets heavily used and then
cannot be improved due to web compat. I think it’s premature to ship
without signals from other engines and without a TAG review. We should have
m
12 matches
Mail list logo
