Intent to Ship: CSS "overflow" media features

[Daniil Sakhapov]

Contact emails

sakh...@chromium.org

Specification

https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/mediaqueries/#mf-overflow-block

Summary

Implements "overflow-inline" and "overflow-block" media features. Allows to distinguish styles for displays with different overflow characteristics.

Blink component

Blink>CSS

Risks

Interoperability and Compatibility

Gecko: Shipped/Shipping

WebKit: No signal

Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, Android, and Android WebView)?

Yes

Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests?

Yes

https://wpt.fyi/css/mediaqueries/overflow-media-features.html

Flag name

CSSOverflowMediaFeatures

Tracking bug

https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=790911

Estimated milestones

DevTrial on desktop

113

DevTrial on Android

113

Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status

https://chromestatus.com/feature/5093005876264960

This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status.

[Yoav Weiss]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 4:18 PM Daniil Sakhapov <sakh...@chromium.org> wrote:

Contact emails

sakh...@chromium.org

Specification

https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/mediaqueries/#mf-overflow-block

Summary

Implements "overflow-inline" and "overflow-block" media features. Allows to distinguish styles for displays with different overflow characteristics.

Blink component

Blink>CSS

Risks

Interoperability and Compatibility

Gecko: Shipped/Shipping

WebKit: No signal

Similar to the other intent, can you ask for a WebKit position and see if we know of a developer signal for this?

 

Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, Android, and Android WebView)?

Yes

Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests?

Yes

https://wpt.fyi/css/mediaqueries/overflow-media-features.html

Flag name

CSSOverflowMediaFeatures

Tracking bug

https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=790911

Estimated milestones

DevTrial on desktop

113

DevTrial on Android

113

Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status

https://chromestatus.com/feature/5093005876264960

This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status.

--
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+...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAH3Z92-ra1pfVf%3DV93-RqesCwaRm9aiyhJgeLoOfRJBV-heCdA%40mail.gmail.com.

[fantasai]

On 3/1/23 08:22, Yoav Weiss wrote:
>
> Interoperability and Compatibility
>
>
> /Gecko/: Shipped/Shipping
>
> /WebKit/: No signal

>
>
> Similar to the other intent, can you ask for a WebKit position and see if we
> know of a developer signal for this?

The feature is in a CR-level CSS spec, so FWIW that includes implicit sign-off
from WebKit's reps--reaching CR status requires consensus of the CSSWG that
the spec is complete and appropriate to implement and ship. (This might be
something to track in your Intents, btw.)
https://www.w3.org/TR/mediaqueries-4/

~fantasai

[Alex Russell]

Our process does not pay much mind to arbitrary standards gates when others have not already shipped. If WebKit had (has?) implemented, that would shortcut our analysis, otherwise, it's still worth asking.

Best,

Alex

[Florian Rivoal]

On 4Mar 2023, at 5:59, Alex Russell <sligh...@chromium.org> wrote:

Our process does not pay much mind to arbitrary standards gates when others have not already shipped. If WebKit had (has?) implemented, that would shortcut our analysis, otherwise, it's still worth asking.

The point is not about what the W3C Process say you can do at what stage, the point is that for a CSS spec to get to CR, there needs to be a sign off from the groups’ members that this is OK to ship. This is not as strong as “we want to ship this ourselves soon”, but this is stronger than “no signal”, as was stated earlier.

This may be true in other groups, but it is especially true in the CSSWG, which includes all the browsers, and has an explicit policy that publishing something as a CR means we have consensus it is OK to ship it.

https://www.w3.org/TR/css/#testing

So my read of webkit’s position would be: “has indicated support for the feature being shipped in general, unclear when they intend to do so themselves”. It’s absolutely reasonable to ask webkit if you’re looking for something more firm that than (or more recent, or…), but I think it is worth noting you at least have that much.

—Florian

[Alex Russell]

Our history with the WebKit project suggests that imputations of implicit consent are unwelcome, and so in addition to the general orientation of our process towards explicit evidence, it is in the interest of respecting the WebKitten's own preferences that we ask formally.

Best,

Alex

[Philip Jägenstedt]

I think this feature falls under Implementations of already-defined consensus-based standards in our process, and Signals from other implementations in an intent-to-ship aren't part of that section.

If this wasn't already shipped in Gecko I do agree with Alex that the spec status shouldn't carry a lot of weight and we should file standards positions, but I don't think our documented process backs up that preference.

Anyway, this has already shipped in Gecko, and I don't think we need to file a standards position issue for WebKit.

In other words, I'd be happy to LGTM this, but will abstain since Daniil is on my team.

--

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+...@chromium.org.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/f709d52b-46ba-4390-b307-cda73990db1en%40chromium.org.

[Yoav Weiss]

LGTM1 % filing a WebKit position

We discussed this intent at the API owner meeting (Rick, Chris, Daniel, MikeT, Philip,, Alex and myself). We agreed that there's value in filing a WebKit position issue here, if anything to put this on their radar (pun not intended) and let them know we intend to ship this and that Gecko already has.

I also wish we had some developer signal for this, but given the fact Gecko already shipped, I won't block on it.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAARdPYdxZ5_MvS-gB5mZKE8-zL8rr1FmH%2BghJwUR3iuQGjeiOA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Daniil Sakhapov]

Done:

https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/146

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 6:09:22 PM UTC+1 Yoav Weiss wrote:

LGTM1 % filing a WebKit position

We discussed this intent at the API owner meeting (Rick, Chris, Daniel, MikeT, Philip,, Alex and myself). We agreed that there's value in filing a WebKit position issue here, if anything to put this on their radar (pun not intended) and let them know we intend to ship this and that Gecko already has.

I also wish we had some developer signal for this, but given the fact Gecko already shipped, I won't block on it.

On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 12:37 PM Philip Jägenstedt <foo...@chromium.org> wrote:

I think this feature falls under Implementations of already-defined consensus-based standards in our process, and Signals from other implementations in an intent-to-ship aren't part of that section.

If this wasn't already shipped in Gecko I do agree with Alex that the spec status shouldn't carry a lot of weight and we should file standards positions, but I don't think our documented process backs up that preference.

Anyway, this has already shipped in Gecko, and I don't think we need to file a standards position issue for WebKit.

In other words, I'd be happy to LGTM this, but will abstain since Daniil is on my team.

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 6:49 PM Alex Russell <sligh...@chromium.org> wrote:

Our history with the WebKit project suggests that imputations of implicit consent are unwelcome, and so in addition to the general orientation of our process towards explicit evidence, it is in the interest of respecting the WebKitten's own preferences that we ask formally.

Best,

Alex

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 8:33:26 PM UTC-8 flo...@rivoal.net wrote:

On 4Mar 2023, at 5:59, Alex Russell <sligh...@chromium.org> wrote:

Our process does not pay much mind to arbitrary standards gates when others have not already shipped. If WebKit had (has?) implemented, that would shortcut our analysis, otherwise, it's still worth asking.

The point is not about what the W3C Process say you can do at what stage, the point is that for a CSS spec to get to CR, there needs to be a sign off from the groups’ members that this is OK to ship. This is not as strong as “we want to ship this ourselves soon”, but this is stronger than “no signal”, as was stated earlier.

This may be true in other groups, but it is especially true in the CSSWG, which includes all the browsers, and has an explicit policy that publishing something as a CR means we have consensus it is OK to ship it.

https://www.w3.org/TR/css/#testing

So my read of webkit’s position would be: “has indicated support for the feature being shipped in general, unclear when they intend to do so themselves”. It’s absolutely reasonable to ask webkit if you’re looking for something more firm that than (or more recent, or…), but I think it is worth noting you at least have that much.

—Florian

--
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+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/f709d52b-46ba-4390-b307-cda73990db1en%40chromium.org.

--
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+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

[Manuel Rego Casasnovas]

LGTM2

On 14/03/2023 16:13, Daniil Sakhapov wrote:
> Done:
> https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/146
>
> On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 6:09:22 PM UTC+1 Yoav Weiss wrote:
>
> LGTM1 % filing a WebKit position
>
> We discussed this intent at the API owner meeting (Rick, Chris,
> Daniel, MikeT, Philip,, Alex and myself). We agreed that there's
> value in filing a WebKit position issue here, if anything to put
> this on their radar (pun not intended) and let them know we intend
> to ship this and that Gecko already has.
>
> I also wish we had some developer signal for this, but given the
> fact Gecko already shipped, I won't block on it.
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 12:37 PM Philip Jägenstedt
> <foo...@chromium.org <mailto:foo...@chromium.org>> wrote:
>
> I think this feature falls under Implementations of
> already-defined consensus-based standards

> <https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features/#process-existing-standard> in our process, and Signals from other implementations in an intent-to-ship <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xkHRXnFS8GDqZi7E0SSbR3a7CZsGScdxPUWBsNgo-oo/edit?usp=sharing> aren't part of that section.

>
> If this wasn't already shipped in Gecko I do agree with Alex
> that the spec status shouldn't carry a lot of weight and we
> should file standards positions, but I don't think our
> documented process backs up that preference.
>
> Anyway, this has already shipped in Gecko, and I don't think we
> need to file a standards position issue for WebKit.
>
> In other words, I'd be happy to LGTM this, but will abstain
> since Daniil is on my team.
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 6:49 PM Alex Russell
> <sligh...@chromium.org <mailto:sligh...@chromium.org>> wrote:
>
> Our history with the WebKit project suggests that
> imputations of implicit consent are unwelcome, and so in
> addition to the general orientation of our process towards
> explicit evidence, it is in the interest of respecting the
> WebKitten's own preferences that we ask formally.
>
> Best,
>
> Alex
>
> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 8:33:26 PM UTC-8

> flo...@rivoal.net <mailto:flo...@rivoal.net> wrote:
>
>
>> On 4Mar 2023, at 5:59, Alex Russell
>> <sligh...@chromium.org

> from it, send an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org
> <mailto:blink-dev+...@chromium.org>.

> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/f709d52b-46ba-4390-b307-cda73990db1en%40chromium.org <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/f709d52b-46ba-4390-b307-cda73990db1en%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>
> --
> 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+...@chromium.org
> <mailto:blink-dev+...@chromium.org>.

>
> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAARdPYdxZ5_MvS-gB5mZKE8-zL8rr1FmH%2BghJwUR3iuQGjeiOA%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAARdPYdxZ5_MvS-gB5mZKE8-zL8rr1FmH%2BghJwUR3iuQGjeiOA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>
> --
> 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+...@chromium.org
> <mailto:blink-dev+...@chromium.org>.

> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/0a4db3ac-fd94-4300-bb48-b6eef7c5ee1dn%40chromium.org <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/0a4db3ac-fd94-4300-bb48-b6eef7c5ee1dn%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Mike Taylor]

LGTM3