The anticipated spec change is now merged <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/commit/aa94f650329b2f3096cbeddc6820100b30280baf>, and the tentative-named WPT tests have been renamed (CL <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/5740910>, WPT PR <https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/47297>).
-David On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 8:19 PM Domenic Denicola <dome...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 12:23 AM David Baron <dba...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> Contact emailsdba...@chromium.org >> >> Explainer >> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/blob/main/css-values-5/calc-size-explainer.md >> >> Specificationhttps://drafts.csswg.org/css-values-5/#calc-size >> >> Summary >> >> The CSS interpolate-size property allows a page to opt in to animations >> and transitions of CSS intrinsic sizing keywords such as auto, min-content, >> fit-content, etc., in the cases where we can animate those keywords. The >> CSS calc-size() function is a CSS function similar to calc(), but that also >> supports operations on exactly one of the values auto, min-content, >> max-content, fit-content, stretch, or contain. This function is used to >> represent the values in the middle of the animations allowed by the >> interpolate-size property. >> >> >> Blink componentBlink>Layout >> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink%3ELayout> >> >> TAG reviewhttps://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/955 >> >> TAG review statusIssues open. >> >> I think there were two substantive issues that came out of the TAG >> review, one of which is addressed and one of which we disagree with and is >> not addressed. >> >> One issue was that the use of the calc-size() function as the recommended >> opt-in mechanism for animation of sizing keywords was not ideal. This is >> because of behavior in browsers that don't yet support the feature. >> Changing the way that the endpoints of the animation are specified breaks >> not only the animation but also the static behavior before or after the >> animation, unless authors are careful to use additional fallback >> declarations with supported values. This was addressed with the somewhat >> late-breaking addition of a separate opt-in, the interpolate-size property, >> which was already being discussed for other reasons. This will be the >> recommended way to opt in to animation of keywords. Some (but probably not >> all) documentation has been updated to reflect this change. The >> calc-size() syntax is kept for three reasons: first, that developers have >> found other useful ways to use it that aren't about animations; second >> (related to the first) that the extensible web manifesto argues that we >> should bias towards exposing internal mechanisms unless there's a good >> reason not to; and third, that it would be difficult architecturally to >> support CSS animations where the computed value in the middle can't be >> represented in CSS syntax. >> >> The second issue, where we disagree (see the discussion in the TAG >> review) is that the TAG thinks that this syntax should be part of the >> calc() function (with complex limitations on when the sizing keywords can >> be used) rather than a separate calc-size() function that more clearly >> presents those limitations. >> >> Risks >> >> >> Interoperability and Compatibility >> >> No concrete risks. There may be some risk due to the amount of discussion >> that the feature has had so far, though it has been discussed multiple >> times in the CSS Working Group, and has had a TAG review. I haven't yet >> heard back on the standards-positions requests from other vendors, though >> they've been on file for a few months. >> >> >> *Gecko*: No signal ( >> https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1022) >> >> *WebKit*: No signal ( >> https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/348) >> >> *Web developers*: Positive Animation to/from auto height is a very >> commonly requested feature by developers. See citations and comments in >> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/626, >> https://issues.chromium.org/40339056, and >> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=571344. >> >> Also see the following excitement about the feature since prototyping has >> started (also see boosts and responses): >> https://twitter.com/yisibl/status/1791452140663345300 >> https://twitter.com/Una/status/1791531167558090920 >> https://front-end.social/@chriscoyier/112575832546969221 >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VsMKz4Zweg >> https://front-end.social/@kizu/112537660977381136 >> https://blog.kizu.dev/weekly-bookmarks-010/ >> >> *Other signals*: >> >> WebView application risks >> >> Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such that >> it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications? >> >> None >> >> >> Debuggability >> >> Expected to be similar to existing CSS calc() function. >> >> >> Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, Mac, >> Linux, ChromeOS, Android, and Android WebView)?Yes >> >> Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests >> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> >> ?Yes >> >> https://wpt.fyi/results/css/css-values/calc-size >> >> >> Flag name on chrome://flagsNone >> >> Finch feature namekCSSCalcSizeFunction >> >> Requires code in //chrome?False >> >> Tracking bughttps://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=313072 >> >> Estimated milestones >> Shipping on desktop 128 >> DevTrial on desktop 123 >> Shipping on Android 128 >> DevTrial on Android 123 >> Shipping on WebView 128 >> Note that the 128 estimate is moderately ambitious, and slipping to >> 129 may be needed. >> >> Anticipated spec changes >> >> Open questions about a feature may be a source of future web compat or >> interop issues. Please list open issues (e.g. links to known github issues >> in the project for the feature specification) whose resolution may >> introduce web compat/interop risk (e.g., changing to naming or structure of >> the API in a non-backward-compatible way). >> I still need to land the spec changes formally defining which properties >> this works on (i.e., the one line change to the value definition of the >> relevant properties linking to the substantive spec). I hope to do this in >> the next week or two. >> > > Any updates on this anticipated spec change to share? > > >> >> >> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status >> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5196713071738880?gate=5074705734434816 >> >> Links to previous Intent discussionsIntent to prototype: >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAG0MU3hBtXebfpW3JSoO-RF43aCCsNK-vZ0uvqoVaBoJbfAT6g%40mail.gmail.com >> >> This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status >> <https://chromestatus.com/>. >> >> -- >> 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+unsubscr...@chromium.org. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAG0MU3jD2mFCzFTJ560acs%3DzFQZEDc8%3Dpos%2B%3DUVZitJ27vfFmg%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAG0MU3jD2mFCzFTJ560acs%3DzFQZEDc8%3Dpos%2B%3DUVZitJ27vfFmg%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+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAG0MU3jp-AZOTG1%2BRFQBD_qA7o-2zdd2NY-RmqYZh_e2bTfPsA%40mail.gmail.com.
