[WIP][gap-decorations] Allow gap decorations to apply to -webkit-box? [chromium/src : main]
Ian Kilpatrick (Gerrit)
Ian Kilpatrick added 1 comment![]( "Open in Gerrit")
Sending this out for discussion. Should this happen?
Related details
- Kevin Babbitt
- Sam Davis Omekara
Code-Coverage
Code-Owners
Code-Review
No-Unresolved-Comments
Review-Enforcement
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
Kevin Babbitt (Gerrit)
Kevin Babbitt voted and added 2 comments![]( "Open in Gerrit")
Votes added by Kevin Babbitt
| Code-Review | +1 |
Sending this out for discussion. Should this happen?
I don't know `-webkit-box` well enough to have a strong opinion on whether it should. No objection provided it wouldn't cause an outsized maintenance burden.
.webkit-box-container {Wondering if it would make sense to use `@supports` in this test so that it doesn't spuriously fail in implementations that don't support `-webkit-box`.
Related details
- Ian Kilpatrick
- Sam Davis Omekara
Code-Coverage
Code-Owners
Code-Review
No-Unresolved-Comments
Review-Enforcement
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
Sam Davis Omekara (Gerrit)
Sam Davis Omekara voted and added 1 comment![]( "Open in Gerrit")
Votes added by Sam Davis Omekara
| Code-Review | +1 |
Kevin BabbittSending this out for discussion. Should this happen?
I don't know `-webkit-box` well enough to have a strong opinion on whether it should. No objection provided it wouldn't cause an outsized maintenance burden.
Wasn't familiar with `-webkit-box`, but after skimming online content, primarily this one: https://accreditly.io/articles/webkit-box-explained, I think we should consider supporting it, especially for legacy sites that may want to adopt gap decorations. Another argument for supporting is that it would help maintain consistency and reduce divergence between `-webkit-box` and `flex`.
On the other side of the coin, most sources emphasize that `-webkit-box` is obsolete and non-standard, so extending new features to an outdated/ non-standard API could discourage migration to modern standardized APIs. Despite this, I lean toward supporting it for the sake of consistency and to better support legacy systems.
Related details
- Ian Kilpatrick
Code-Coverage
Code-Owners
Code-Review
No-Unresolved-Comments
Review-Enforcement
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
Ian Kilpatrick (Gerrit)
Ian Kilpatrick voted and added 2 comments![]( "Open in Gerrit")
Votes added by Ian Kilpatrick
| Commit-Queue | +2 |
Kevin BabbittSending this out for discussion. Should this happen?
Sam Davis OmekaraI don't know `-webkit-box` well enough to have a strong opinion on whether it should. No objection provided it wouldn't cause an outsized maintenance burden.
Wasn't familiar with `-webkit-box`, but after skimming online content, primarily this one: https://accreditly.io/articles/webkit-box-explained, I think we should consider supporting it, especially for legacy sites that may want to adopt gap decorations. Another argument for supporting is that it would help maintain consistency and reduce divergence between `-webkit-box` and `flex`.
On the other side of the coin, most sources emphasize that `-webkit-box` is obsolete and non-standard, so extending new features to an outdated/ non-standard API could discourage migration to modern standardized APIs. Despite this, I lean toward supporting it for the sake of consistency and to better support legacy systems.
No objection provided it wouldn't cause an outsized maintenance burden.
Yeah doesn't really create a maint. burden.
Despite this, I lean toward supporting it for the sake of consistency and to better support legacy systems.
My primary reason for supporting this is just for consistency with where "gap" is supported (e.g. if a mode supports "gap" is should support gap decorations), and it makes the mapping between flex & -webkit-box a simple as possible. Newer implementations don't need to explicitly disable it for example.
I'll commit this. I suppose it goes under the meta bug of "what is -webkit-box".
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1946
Wondering if it would make sense to use `@supports` in this test so that it doesn't spuriously fail in implementations that don't support `-webkit-box`.
-webkit-box is required for web-compat at the moment (unfortunately).
Related details
Code-Coverage
Code-Owners
Code-Review
Review-Enforcement
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |