Intent to ship: aspect-ratio property

I intend to turn the preferred aspect ratio, `aspect-ratio` property, on by default on all platforms after the last bug got landed (i.e. bug 1646098 ), so the most possible version should be

Intent to prototype: fit-content() function

Hi, [css-sizing-3] introduces a fit-content() value, that is a new value similar to fit-content, except taking an argument instead of using the available width. This value is used in width/min-width/max-width (if the inline axis is horizontal). Gecko supports the -moz-fit-content keyword, but befo

Intent to prototype: CSS aspect-ratio in [css-sizing-4]

*Summary*: This property sets a "preferred aspect ratio" for the box, which will be used in the calculation of auto sizes and some other layout functions. (Note: If a box has both a width and a height that are not automatic, then the preferred aspect ratio has no effect.) Example: A very simple cas

Intent to ship: Web Animations Animation timelines (without the setter of Animation.timeline)

Hi, We intend to turn on the preference of the Animation timelines this week. * dom.animations-api.timelines.enabled This preference enables Animation.timeline getter, Document.timeline, and DocumentTimeline and AnimationTimeline interfaces. This feature has been implemented in WebKit and Blink

Re: Intent to Ship: [css-transforms-2] Individual Transform Properties (i.e. translate, rotate, scale)

Hi Xidorn, I just filed one for individual transform properties: Bug 1598115 <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1598115>. Thanks for this reminder. On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 12:27 PM Xidorn Quan wrote: > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Boris Chiou wrote: > > *DevT

Re: Intent to Ship: [css-transforms-2] Individual Transform Properties (i.e. translate, rotate, scale)

For the 3 properties you propose > shipping the situation is different. > > Greetings, > Dirk > > ________ > From: dev-platform on behalf of > Boris Chiou > Sent: Friday, November 15, 2019 12:01 AM > To: dev-platform > Subject: Intent

Re: Intent to Ship: motion path module level 1

shorthand offset. Level 2 would > include the 2 remaining properties and the ray() and basic shape functions. > If 2 implementations support the 3 longhand properties consistently it > brings the spec of level 1 to CR faster. > > Greetings, > Dirk > >

Intent to Ship: motion path module level 1

Hi, All As of Firefox 72, I intend to turn the preference of motion-path, layout.css.motion-path.enabled, on by default on all platforms. Blink has shipped it already but Webkit doesn't support it yet. There are some properties defined in the spec, and I would like to ship part of them, to match t

Intent to Ship: [css-transforms-2] Individual Transform Properties (i.e. translate, rotate, scale)

Hi, All As of Firefox 72, I intend to turn the preference of individual transform properties, layout.css.individual-transform.enabled , on by default on all platforms.

Re: Intent to ship: |clip-path: path()|

, Sep 2, 2019 at 1:16 AM Patrick Brosset wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 7:45 PM Boris Chiou wrote: > >> *DevTools*: We don't support DevTools for this function now. >> > > For reference: this was already discussed at Mozilla between the layout > and devtools tea

Intent to ship: |clip-path: path()|

As of Firefox 71, I intend to turn |clip-path: path()| on by default on all platforms. It has been developed behind the "layout.css.clip-path-path.enabled" preference. Safari has shipped it already, but Chrome doesn't support it yet. There is no blocking issue, so we would like to turn it on. *Bug

Intent to ship: Percentage opacity

/svg/pservers/parsing/stop-opacity-valid.svg <https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/testing/web-platform/tests/svg/pservers/parsing/stop-opacity-valid.svg> Secure contexts: No. Just let parser support percentage value on `Opacity` type. Thanks. Regards, Boris Chiou __

Intent to unship: 3-valued position syntax from , ,

Hi, The spec for only accepts 1,2, or 4-valued syntax. so I'd like to retire the 3-valued positions from these CSS properties (i.e. , , and ). Blink retired this support in Chrome 68, and we are planning to retire them to match the spec, t

Intent to implement and ship: Resize Observer API

server) *Is this feature restricted to secure contexts?* No If you have any concerns or questions, please feel free to let me know. Thanks. Regards, Boris Chiou ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to ship: unprefixed max-content and min-content for css sizing properties

Boris On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 10:36 AM Boris Chiou wrote: > The web platform tests only check if the parser could accept the keywords > in css/css-sizing/parsing. About the rendering results of keywords, I > cannot find any reftest in css-sizing or in css-boxing in wpt. Both Gecko >

Intent to ship: unprefixed max-content and min-content for css sizing properties

Summary: `max-content` and `min-content` are sizing values for width, min-width, max-width, height, min-height, max-height, inline-size, min-inline-size, max-inline-size, and flex-basis. We support these two keywords with -moz- prefix for many years, and Google Chrome has shipped them for 3 years.

Intent to implement: Motion Path Module Level 1

Tools should support this, so we will file a bug for this. Do other browser engines implement this? Yes, but now only Google chrome supports Motion Path. Tests - web-platform/tests/css/motion/ I will also add tests in layout, according to our current implementation. --

Intent to ship: Frames timing functions

As of Firefox 55, I intend to land the patches of Frames timing functions in Bug 1248340 . Currently, we decide not to add a pref for that, so we will ship it directly. In this bug, we also contribute the tests into web-platform-test*, *web-plat

Re: Intent to implement: Frames timing functions

OK, sure. I will add a pref to protect it. Thanks for suggestion. On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 12:09 AM, wrote: > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 9:09:58 AM UTC-6, Boris Chiou wrote: > > *Preference behind which this will be implemented*: I'm not sure. I think > > we don

Intent to implement: Frames timing functions

*Summary*: A frames timing function is a type of timing function that divides the input time into a specified number of intervals of equal length, each of which is associated with an output progress value of increasing value. The difference between a frames timing function and a step timing functio