Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
[css-2015][css-2017][css-2018] List features cleared for shipping #2388
We have a policy of discouraging shipping implementations for anything which hasn't been cleared by the CSSWG, either by the spec reaching CR or by us resolving on an exception to indicate that we've reviewed it and think it's stable enough. It's easy to see what's in CR, it's harder to find the list of exceptions: we should put them in the snapshot.
Here's a start:
Diff of proposed text (can merge the two lists if preferred):
Also, if this is the working group's policy, I think it would also be helpful to have a list of the specs that have at some point in the past been in CR. We have specs that have been in CR, but that have had very substantial changes since the CR (e.g., ruby and text were last in CR in May 2003; I think some features in them may also have been explicitly cleared to ship).
I also think that if we build a list of things that have been cleared to ship, we should make some attempt to make that list exhaustive. There are a bunch of those hidden in meeting minutes in various places over the past decade. And the list of features that are actually shipping is substantially larger than the set of features allowed by the policy as written, and I think much of that was done with the approval of the working group, although perhaps not by the fully formal process laid out in the snapshot. (And, hmmm... that section seems to have a bunch of the text that duplicates what @fantasai proposes at the top of this issue.)
They are shipping on the underlying platforms, and in consequence the CSS aspect is also shipping, yes.
The Working Group just discussed
The full IRC log of that discussion<dael> Topic: List of features for shipping
<dael> github: https://github.com//issues/2388
<plinss> : present+ Peter Linss, Invited Expert
<dael> florian: The snapshot has a section with the general policy of the WG. WE don't do vendor prefixes but do draft maturity. The WG can make exceptions based on market pressure. WE don't list what the exceptions are. fantasai created proposed text and a list of examples.
<dael> dbaron: One of my concerns about the list is over the past 15 years we've cleared various features at various times that are scattered across minutes. The mor complete the list is the more serious it is to have them listed.
<dael> fantasai: We should get to the point where the list is comprehensive. If there are things not on the list we should add them.
<dael> florian: It's a not so repub isn't hard.
<astearns> section under discussion: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-2018/#experimental
<dael> dbaron: WE may find two or three missing over the course of a month.
<dael> fantasai: That's okay.
<dael> florian: Review the list?
<dael> fantasai: I think my list was things we've already cleared. There's stuff we didn't clear buy shipped.
<dael> florian: [reads list]
<dael> florian: Chris suggested we add conic gradient
<dael> florian: Focus-within?
<dael> fantasai: I don't think explicitly cleared, but it's shipping.
<dael> florian: That's the list. fantasai has an edit proposed. If everyone is happy we'll merge.
<dael> dbaron: Is this the edit with similar text?
<dael> fantasai: Yeah, we have to clean that up.
<dael> dbaron: I'm fine with merging after the duplication is sorted out.
<dael> florian: Are we okay resolving to merge this after editorial improvements?
<dael> astearns: And going forward as we approve things edit this in.
<dael> fantasai: And if there's something that needs to be added to the list let us know.
<dael> dbaron: There's things that should be on the list but I couldn't find minutes.
<dael> fantasai: Just list and say "I think we cleared but I couldn't find miuntes"
<dael> dbaron: Some were over 10 years ago.
<dael> fantasai: Put them in and we'll find them or re-resolve
<dael> Rossen: Other suggestions?
<dael> Rossen: Objections?
<dael> RESOLVED: Merge this text in after editorial changes
<dael> florian: There are 4 open issues. Link in the agenda. Do we want to publish before dealing with them?
<dael> florian: One is an issue in bikeshed, the indexes are slightly wrong, I wouldn't block on that. Document conformance should be added from 2.1, that should happen. But do we want to block on it?
<dael> florian: Last is sort of related, issue #1139. NOthing lists what the fields in the propdef table means. Snapshot could be that.
<dael> ??: I think that's the right place.
<dael> florian: It's a new snapshot because it's a new year.
<dael> Rossen: Sure. It will be more beneficial to get the snapshot out.
<dael> Rossen: Was issue should we block on those?
<dael> florian: yes
<dael> Rossen: Obj to proceed with publishing snapshot as-is including the open issues?
<dael> RESOLVED: proceed with publishing snapshot as-is including the open issues
I have some concerns about this "clear to ship" process. Clearing a feature for shipping doesn't seem to be based on any testing or implementation criteria, so anyone is free to push their pet feature as "clear to ship", bypassing the normal process which is based on spec status. I think we should only used the "clear to ship" exception in exceptional circumstances, and not for things like conic gradient or rotate/translate/scale. Those should be handled via spec acceleration or splitting. When we do use the exception process, there should be testing and implementation criteria.
@smfr I agree with you that this "clear to ship" should be used for exceptions, and that normal cases should be handled via spec acceleration or splitting.
Do you "just" want to us be more careful in the future about how we grant exceptions, or do you want to try and overturn the resolution that granted exceptions for conic gradient or rotate/translate/scale?
That does not change the fundamental part of this issue, which is that we list the exceptions we have granted, so I'll move forward with the edits, but if we do overturn these resolutions, I'll update the list accordingly.