New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[css-cascade] Are 'Override declarations' still a thing? #1385

Closed
SelenIT opened this Issue May 17, 2017 · 3 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@SelenIT
Collaborator

SelenIT commented May 17, 2017

Historically, the CSS Cascading and Inheritance spec lists 'Override declarations' among other cascading origins. But it appears that the spec that they refer to has never been really implemented, and 'Override declarations' are now a purely theoretical concept with no connection to the reality. What about dropping them at all, in order to make the cascading algorithm simpler?

@birtles

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@birtles

birtles May 17, 2017

Contributor

SMIL uses the override level of the cascade for its animation results. However, that was defined before the animations level of the cascade was added and it should probably just contribute to the animations level of the cascade (with CSS animations defined to override SMIL animations as they currently do).

Contributor

birtles commented May 17, 2017

SMIL uses the override level of the cascade for its animation results. However, that was defined before the animations level of the cascade was added and it should probably just contribute to the animations level of the cascade (with CSS animations defined to override SMIL animations as they currently do).

@SelenIT

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@SelenIT

SelenIT Jul 12, 2017

Collaborator

If I understand correctly, the only place where SMIL spec mentions override CSS declarations refers to the Section 6.1 of the CSS2 spec and to the DOM2CSS spec. Since the former has currently been superseded by CSS Cascade 3 and the latter seems to be abandoned (probably replaced by the CSSOM spec?), maybe we can already make a note in the next level of the Cascade spec like "reference to Override styles in older animation-relates specs should be treated as reference to Animation styles" and simplify the cascade definition?

Collaborator

SelenIT commented Jul 12, 2017

If I understand correctly, the only place where SMIL spec mentions override CSS declarations refers to the Section 6.1 of the CSS2 spec and to the DOM2CSS spec. Since the former has currently been superseded by CSS Cascade 3 and the latter seems to be abandoned (probably replaced by the CSSOM spec?), maybe we can already make a note in the next level of the Cascade spec like "reference to Override styles in older animation-relates specs should be treated as reference to Animation styles" and simplify the cascade definition?

@css-meeting-bot

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@css-meeting-bot

css-meeting-bot Nov 1, 2017

Member

The Working Group just discussed Are 'Override declarations' still a thing?, and agreed to the following resolutions:

  • RESOLVED: remove this from both levels of CSS cascade and replacing the reference with a note
The full IRC log of that discussion <dael> Topic: Are 'Override declarations' still a thing?
<dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1385
<dael> fremy: From the look I took it's not referenced by CSS. I think it's fine to drop, but I don't know if somebody has a strong opinion. Not easy without enough people on the call.
<dael> dbaron: I think we (Gecko) did remove the override stylesheet API if we had it.
<dael> astearns: Let's leave it as that. We have two options and we'll come back when there's more people.
<dael> fremy: Or we can resolve and if someone disagrees we re-open.
<dael> fremy: In the interest of progress.
<dael> astearns: That's fair. I would have liked to see an opinion fromm Tab with the issue.
<dael> fantasai: Tab and I don't have an opinion. We discussed last week.
<dael> astearns: Looking at the issue the last comment suggests to make a note in last level of cascade spec that we can simplify and have a note.
<dael> fantasai: I'm happy tot ake edits to remove but we can add a note pointing to it that there was a thing that no one impl.
<dael> astearns: This is only next level of css casacde?
<dael> fantasai: Both.
<dael> fantasai: Both are in CR.
<dael> astearns: Obj to removing this from both levels of CSS cascade and replacing the reference with a note?
<fantasai> s/Both./Both. If the feature doesn't exist, it doesn't exist anywhere./
<dael> RESOLVED: remove this from both levels of CSS cascade and replacing the reference with a note
<fantasai> s/CR./CR anyways./
<dael> astearns: Thanks for taking on these edits fantasai
Member

css-meeting-bot commented Nov 1, 2017

The Working Group just discussed Are 'Override declarations' still a thing?, and agreed to the following resolutions:

  • RESOLVED: remove this from both levels of CSS cascade and replacing the reference with a note
The full IRC log of that discussion <dael> Topic: Are 'Override declarations' still a thing?
<dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1385
<dael> fremy: From the look I took it's not referenced by CSS. I think it's fine to drop, but I don't know if somebody has a strong opinion. Not easy without enough people on the call.
<dael> dbaron: I think we (Gecko) did remove the override stylesheet API if we had it.
<dael> astearns: Let's leave it as that. We have two options and we'll come back when there's more people.
<dael> fremy: Or we can resolve and if someone disagrees we re-open.
<dael> fremy: In the interest of progress.
<dael> astearns: That's fair. I would have liked to see an opinion fromm Tab with the issue.
<dael> fantasai: Tab and I don't have an opinion. We discussed last week.
<dael> astearns: Looking at the issue the last comment suggests to make a note in last level of cascade spec that we can simplify and have a note.
<dael> fantasai: I'm happy tot ake edits to remove but we can add a note pointing to it that there was a thing that no one impl.
<dael> astearns: This is only next level of css casacde?
<dael> fantasai: Both.
<dael> fantasai: Both are in CR.
<dael> astearns: Obj to removing this from both levels of CSS cascade and replacing the reference with a note?
<fantasai> s/Both./Both. If the feature doesn't exist, it doesn't exist anywhere./
<dael> RESOLVED: remove this from both levels of CSS cascade and replacing the reference with a note
<fantasai> s/CR./CR anyways./
<dael> astearns: Thanks for taking on these edits fantasai
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment