Republishing Tasks Permathread

[tabatkins]

Tag the IRC bot with this thread whenever publication resolutions are being discussed.

Agenda+ and add a comment if you want to publish something.

1. Edit this comment to add things to the list. Say what is being published (FPWD, WD, CRD, CRS, Rec, etc)
2. Include a link to the latest resolution to publish and/or Agenda+ request for permission to publish, so we can follow-up.
3. Checkmark means has a WG resolution.
4. Link the transition request, once it has been made.
5. Remove from list once actually published.

See also Estimated Publication Badness Chart and Transition Requests

Latest:

Backlog of Uncertain Blockedness:

• Animation Worklet
• Properties & Values API
• RESOLVED: Accept the PR and republishing WD of containment 2
• scoping shadow
• WD of Highlight API

• Paint API (needs edits)
• Layout API (needs edits)

[fantasai]

Agenda+ to republish Mediaqueries 3 REC editorial update: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/commits/main/mediaqueries-3
and fix shorthame to mediaqueries-3

[frivoal]

mediaqueries-3 is not written using bikeshed. Does the tooling to generate .html files from .src.html files still exist?

[svgeesus]

It still exists but the result requires so much hand-editing that it is basically easier to work with the generated html to add changes. Same issue for Fonts 3, Color 3.

[fantasai]

Agenda+ to republish CSS Text Level 4, now that I've merged in css-text-3 and added percentages to letter-spacing and word-spacing (as resolved in 2018 T_T)

[css-meeting-bot]

The CSS Working Group just discussed Republishing CSS Text 4, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: Republish css-text level 4

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Topic: Republishing CSS Text 4
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//issues/6900#issuecomment-1064818560
<emilio> fantasai: Proposal is to republish css-text level 4
<emilio> ... changes are that I merged css-text 3 and I added percentage values to letter-spacing and word-spacing that we resolved on 4 years ago
<emilio> Rossen_: any reason not to do it?
<emilio> fantasai: don't think so
<emilio> RESOLVED: Republish css-text level 4

[svgeesus]

RESOLVED: Republish css-color-4 and css-color-5

Publications requested 22 Apr, expected 28 Apr (after the publishing moratorium ends)

[svgeesus]

CSS Will Change 1: publication requested 29 Apr, expected Thu 05 May

[svgeesus]

CSS Will Change 1 CRD published Thu 5 May

[svgeesus]

Publication for CSS Variables 1 CR Snapshot requested 13 June, expected Thu 16 June.

Republication issue filed on Properties & Values API.

[svgeesus]

Variables 1 CR Snapshot published 16 June 2022

[svgeesus]

Agenda+ to republish CSS Color 4 and CSS Color 5 which now incorporate the resolutions from the 15 June 2022 telcon.

[css-meeting-bot]

The CSS Working Group just discussed Republishing tasks.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<TabAtkins> Topic: Republishing tasks
<TabAtkins> github: https://github.com//issues/6900
<TabAtkins> chris: That was color 4 and 5

[svgeesus]

CSS Color 4, publication requested 22 June expected Tue 28 June
CSS Color 5, publication requested 23 June expected Tue 28 June

[svgeesus]

Agenda+ to publish CRD of CSS Color 4. Changes since July 2022 CR Snapshot

[css-meeting-bot]

The CSS Working Group just discussed CSS Color L4, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: Republish CRD of CSS Color 4

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Topic: CSS Color L4
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//issues/6900
<emeyer> chris: There’s been a bunch of updates since June, I’d like to keep it up to date and publish current state
<emeyer> Rossen: As of this state, any feedback or reasons why we shouldn’t republish?
<emeyer> …Any objections?
<emeyer> RESOLVED: Republish CRD of CSS Color 4

[svgeesus]

relaxed syntax is already shipped in major engines. I think it's nice the spec being loosely aligned with current implementations and giving heartbeat.

Absolutely.

[svgeesus]

@fantasai lmk if you need help with the box 3 rec update, supposedly echidna can do it

Turns out Echidna cannot. Also, the REC boilerplate was incorrect; updated manually.

Publication requested 4 April, expected 11 April due to the AC publishing moratorium.

[svgeesus]

WD of CSS Typed OM published 21 March 2024

[svgeesus]

Box 3 Rec published 11 Apr 2024

[svgeesus]

CR Snapshot of CSS Multicol 1 published 16 May

[frivoal]

Requesting updated REC of CSS-Contain-1 to fold in the 3 proposed corrections.
All have two or more implementations (and have for a while now). https://drafts.csswg.org/css-contain-1/implementation-report-2022-09
There is an open issue (#7875) that is likely to require further changes, but these are additional to what we have already, not a contradiction, so we can just handle it later / in parallel.

[svgeesus]

Requesting updated REC of CSS-Contain-1 to fold in the 3 proposed corrections.

This looks ready to go, to me. +1 to recommendation update request

[css-meeting-bot]

The CSS Working Group just discussed Republishing Tasks Permathread, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: We request a updated recommendation, with the three proposed changes folded in

The full IRC log of that discussion

<TabAtkins> btw, I can hear Alan great, but not whoever else is talking right now
<emeyer> florian: Would like to republish css-contain-1
<emeyer> …When we maintain a rec as a rec and want to change but aren't sure if we're ready, we can put in informal notes about how we want to change it
<emeyer> …As these things mature, they fulfill all criteria and the notes come out
<emeyer> …We're at the point of those having been addressed
<emeyer> …There are three changes still proposed, which if we all agree to, we can reissue the rec
<emeyer> astearns: Any questions or comments?
<emeyer> …Proposed resolution: We request a updated recommendation, with the three proposed changes folded in
<emeyer> …No objections; we are resolved
<TabAtkins> I have no objections to the current order, if elika is happy with it
<emeyer> RESOLVED: We request a updated recommendation, with the three proposed changes folded in

Note: It's clear in context, but the above resolution is specifically about CSS-Contain-1

[svgeesus]

Update request for CSS Contain 1

[svgeesus]

CSS Contain 1 republished 25 June 2024

[svgeesus]

Agenda+ for

1. CSS Conditional 3 to CR Draft. Previous 13 January 2022 Candidate Recommendation Snapshot and changes since.
2. CSS Nesting 1 updated WD as proposed earlier but not discussed. Previous 14 February 2023 WD and changes since.

[fantasai]

@tabatkins and I suggest FPWD of css-values-5

[css-meeting-bot]

The CSS Working Group just discussed Republishing Tasks Permathread, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: 1 more calc-size edit in, then issue first working draft of css-values-5

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values-5/
<keithamus> fantasai: Tab and I were thinking we should move values and units level 5 to FWD. It has a bunch of a features we're all actively working on
<keithamus> ... we should publish and tweak it, refine issues before we get to far along
<keithamus> astearns: what features?
<keithamus> fantasai: progress, cross fade, toggle attr, fade, random, random-item, sibling-count, sibling-index, interpolate-size...
<keithamus> astearns: any concerns, those who want more time?
<keithamus> dbaron: Im supportive. One other edit for ??-size. I think it's fine but I'd like to make the edit first
<keithamus> fantasai: we can do that. Let's keep iterating from there.
<dbaron> s/??-size/calc-size that I was hoping to make today/
<keithamus> ChrisL: It takes a few days. It'll be friday at the earliest.
<keithamus> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: 1 more calc-size edit in, then issue first working draft of css-values-5
<keithamus> RESOLVED: 1 more calc-size edit in, then issue first working draft of css-values-5

[svgeesus]

@fantasai @tabatkins need any help with the FPWD transition request for CSS Values 5?

[svgeesus]

Values 5 FPWD published 3 Sept 2024

[css-meeting-bot]

The CSS Working Group just discussed Republishing Tasks Permathread, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: new WD for anchor positioning

The full IRC log of that discussion

<andreubotella> astearns: Tab asked for a new WD for anchor positioning. If all of the edits have resolutions, we don't need a resolution for publishing a new version, but we might as well
<andreubotella> TabAtkins: Not 100% sure everything has a resoltuion. I might have made small edits that didn't have a proper resolution. We also have a lot of renamings that need to be reflected on the WD
<andreubotella> fantasai: Will review the changelog before publishing
<florian> +1
<andreubotella> REOSOLVED: new WD for anchor positioning
<astearns> RESOLVED: new WD for anchor positioning

[fantasai]

Agenda+ to republish CSS Pseudo-Elements Level 4 assuming everyone, especially @schenney-chromium and @delan, are satisfied with the edits.

[noamr]

Agenda+ to republish WD for CSS View Transitions Level 2