Skip to content
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-mediaqueries-5] Note/Issue on not shipping early proposals #4834

Closed
astearns opened this issue Mar 5, 2020 · 4 comments
Closed

[css-mediaqueries-5] Note/Issue on not shipping early proposals #4834

astearns opened this issue Mar 5, 2020 · 4 comments
Labels
Closed Accepted as Editorial Closed Accepted by CSSWG Resolution Commenter Satisfied Commenter has indicated satisfaction with the resolution / edits. mediaqueries-5 Testing Unnecessary Memory aid - issue doesn't require tests

Comments

@astearns
Copy link
Member

astearns commented Mar 5, 2020

One of the things we talked about adding to the level 5 spec is an issue warning against shipping prefers-reduced-data, as we are just now starting to discuss that feature:

#2370 (comment)

Looking at the entire spec, I'm not sure any of the proposals there are ready to ship. The lack of a privacy section is the most glaring omission (captured here: #4832 ), but I think there are still a lot of discussion needed for the entire doc.

What if we added a Note to the intro to go along with the diff spec Note asking implementers to hold off shipping anything in this spec until we’ve done the work and cleared things feature-by-feature? What do you think, @tabatkins @frivoal @grorg?

@fantasai
Copy link
Collaborator

fantasai commented Mar 5, 2020

I believe some of the features are already shipping, though. https://caniuse.com/#search=prefers-

frivoal added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 18, 2020
JTensai pushed a commit to JTensai/csswg-drafts that referenced this issue May 13, 2020
@argyleink
Copy link
Contributor

has time hardened the syntax?
how come reduced data feels flagged as more of a privacy threat than reduced motion?

@css-meeting-bot
Copy link
Member

The CSS Working Group just discussed [css-mediaqueries-5] Note/Issue on not shipping early proposals, and agreed to the following:

  • RESOLVED: Take all the don't implement this notes out of MQ 5
The full IRC log of that discussion <dael> Topic: [css-mediaqueries-5] Note/Issue on not shipping early proposals
<dael> github: https://github.com//issues/4834
<dael> fantasai: MQ 5 is peppered with this is not ready to impl but it's shipping. We shouldn't have notes saying don't do this when everyone is doing it. We shouldn't do that because makes it more likely people will ignore the notes
<dael> astearns: Prop: Take off all the notes?
<dael> fantasai: That's my starting proposal.
<dael> fantasai: If there's anything not shipping we can argue to ahve it
<dael> astearns: Anyone argue for notes to keep?
<dael> astearns: If there are any we should have that people not on the call want we can add
<dael> astearns: Prop: Take all the don't implement this notes out of MQ 5
<dael> astearns: Obj?
<dael> RESOLVED: Take all the don't implement this notes out of MQ 5

@css-meeting-bot
Copy link
Member

The CSS Working Group just discussed [css-mediaqueries-5] Note/Issue on not shipping early proposals.

The full IRC log of that discussion <dael> Topic: [css-mediaqueries-5] Note/Issue on not shipping early proposals
<dael> github: https://github.com//issues/4834
<dael> florian: As far as I'm aware the video-* MQ are not implemented and they do have an existential issue so maybe warning should stay there. Unless they are shipping? I think the warning is right
<dael> astearns: Yes and no. Have other things in other specs with issues
<dael> florian: This is a it may be completely wrong issue. If it's shipping, fine, but if it's not shipping
<dael> astearns: I'm inclined to not put the warning in so we could get impl experiance. If resolution of issue is this was bad people can take it out. That's the risk of impl something in a spec not in CR
<dael> florian: Useful to highlight we don't know what's right but think this is wrong
<dael> fantasai: I think that's fine. But also if someone is shipping something with the warning epople should talk to the WG before shipping
<dael> astearns: I think it makes sense to have a not ein the spec saying we have an issue and this may change
<dael> florian: Okay. I'll take that into account
<fantasai> s/shipping/shipping, shouldn't just leave the spec and impl disagreeing/

@frivoal frivoal added Closed Accepted as Editorial Closed Accepted by CSSWG Resolution Commenter Satisfied Commenter has indicated satisfaction with the resolution / edits. Testing Unnecessary Memory aid - issue doesn't require tests labels Nov 3, 2021
@frivoal frivoal closed this as completed Nov 3, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Closed Accepted as Editorial Closed Accepted by CSSWG Resolution Commenter Satisfied Commenter has indicated satisfaction with the resolution / edits. mediaqueries-5 Testing Unnecessary Memory aid - issue doesn't require tests
Projects
No open projects
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants