Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS "overflow" media features

[Mike Taylor]

LGTM3

On 3/15/23 10:09 AM, Manuel Rego Casasnovas wrote:

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
 mailto: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
 mailto:slightly...@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
 mailto:slightly...@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+unsubscr...@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+unsubscr...@chromium.org
 .

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS "overflow" media features

[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
> mailto: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
> mailto:slightly...@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
>> > > 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+unsubscr...@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 

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS "overflow" media features

[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  
> 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  
>> 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  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+unsubscr...@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+unsubscr...@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
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
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/0a4db3ac-fd94-4300-bb48-b6eef7c5ee1dn%40chromium.org.

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS "overflow" media features

[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.

On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 12:37 PM Philip Jägenstedt 
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 
> 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  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+unsubscr...@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+unsubscr...@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
> 
> .
>

-- 
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/CAL5BFfV5qJG%2BnyOnFNj9m3CikQCv-0T2EW1HCOofrhyXF1QURA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS "overflow" media features

[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.

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 6:49 PM Alex Russell 
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  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+unsubscr...@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+unsubscr...@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.

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS "overflow" media features

[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

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

>
> On 4Mar 2023, at 5:59, Alex Russell  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+unsubscr...@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.

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS "overflow" media features

[Florian Rivoal]

> On 4Mar 2023, at 5:59, Alex Russell  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+unsubscr...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/9143F4AC-503B-40A5-81BB-0978B743B7D6%40rivoal.net.

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS "overflow" media features

[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

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 12:51:02 PM UTC-8 fantasa...@inkedblade.net 
wrote:

> 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
>
>

-- 
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/31e31e6f-e08f-4f7e-a514-5c902a01652fn%40chromium.org.

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS "overflow" media features

[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

--
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/8dab9a07-acd4-99bd-1cec-64f936de8981%40inkedblade.net.

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS "overflow" media features

[Yoav Weiss]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 4:18 PM Daniil Sakhapov 
wrote:

> Contact emailssakha...@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 componentBlink>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 nameCSSOverflowMediaFeatures
>
> Tracking bughttps://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+unsubscr...@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
> 
> .
>

-- 
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/CAL5BFfXwARik8C45sOiFqTtNGDHrpr5A2_-fWsAt9NH64KH6yw%40mail.gmail.com.

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS "overflow" media features

[Daniil Sakhapov]

Contact emailssakha...@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 componentBlink>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 nameCSSOverflowMediaFeatures

Tracking bughttps://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+unsubscr...@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.