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

Topic: Republishing CSS Text 4
github: https://github.com//issues/6900#issuecomment-1064818560
fantasai: Proposal is to republish css-text level 4
... 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
Rossen_: any reason not to do it?
fantasai: don't think so
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

Topic: Republishing tasks
github: https://github.com//issues/6900
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

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

[css-meeting-bot]

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

• RESOLVED: public First Public Working Draft of CSS Gaps

The full IRC log of that discussion

astearns: Any concerns about FPWD for this module?
…Or anyone who’d like to take time to review the edits before moving on?
…Objections?
(none)
RESOLVED: public First Public Working Draft of CSS Gaps

[svgeesus]

Publication of CSS Gaps requested 14 April, expected 17 April

[svgeesus]

CSS Gaps published 17 April

[css-meeting-bot]

The CSS Working Group just discussed FPWD for CSS Custom Functions, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: Publish FPWD of CSS Custom Functions

The full IRC log of that discussion

Topic: FPWD for CSS Custom Functions
Rossen: We need FPWD so people can ship
github:
github: https://github.com//issues/6900
https://drafts.csswg.org/css-mixins-1/
TabAtkins: We've been talking about mixins spec for a while. Discussed in F2F.
... believe spec is ready for FPWD
We are *overdue* for FPWD...
... close to ready for CR
... at least FPWD. let's resolve to do it.
Rossen: Any issues with that?
+1 to FPWD
+1 to FPWD (and to fantasai's comment)
sure, go ahead. If it's nearly ready for CR, it really ought to get on TR at all
RESOLVED: Publish FPWD of CSS Custom Functions
TabAtkins: I'll get publication started.
q?
ack fantasai
fantasai: I wanted to find out plan for review of draft.
TabAtkins: As in when we ping other groups?
fantasai: and blog and trying to get people to look at it
s/and blog/yes and blog/
TabAtkins: We've had shakeup of staff so may be difficult, but I will take care of those.
... I don't think this needs wider review from a11y or i18n?
fantasai: I still think we need to ping them all because requirement for CR
ping everyone and let them say “no comment”
... so publish blog post, ping groups
jensimmons: it's worth taking the time to get dev and browser team feedback
(from APA) it's low-level so probably not an issue but will depend on whether patterns of use emerge during socialization that alarm APA
... I know it takes time, but we are at our best as WG when things have baked well before shipping
TabAtkins: Early feedback has been positive. YouTube personalities seem to like it.
... but as spec author, I would say that ;)

[rachelandrew]

Agenda+ to republish CSS Display Level 4 which includes the resolutions to add the source-order value and reading-order property.

[bramus]

Another request, in light of the Viewport Segments Enumeration API shipping in Chromium soon :

• FPWD of https://drafts.csswg.org/css-env-1/ (modulo the preferred text zoom section, maybe)
• Re-publication of https://drafts.csswg.org/css-viewport/

[SebastianZ]

For the FPWD of CSS Env 1 see #6729.

Sebastian

[svgeesus]

RESOLVED: Publish FPWD of CSS Custom Functions
TabAtkins: I'll get publication started.

@tabatkins not seeing FPWD request on https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues do you need any help?

[tabatkins]

No, I was just being slow about it. Filed now, thanks.

[svgeesus]

Mixins FPWD published 15 May 2025

[noamr]

Requesting to publish an FPWD of css-shapes-2

[fantasai]

@noamr Strong +1 to FPWD of shape() but I'm not sure the rest of the draft is ready.

[fantasai]

Also, while we're at it, can we get an updated draft of css-shapes-1? :)

[noamr]

@noamr Strong +1 to FPWD of shape() but I'm not sure the rest of the draft is ready.

Hmm you're right. What do we usually do in this situation? Is there a way to publish a draft of part of a spec? I'd probably want to do the same for corner-shape in css-borders-4 soon and border-shape is there and not ready.

[svgeesus]

Hmm you're right. What do we usually do in this situation? Is there a way to publish a draft of part of a spec?

Only by splitting it. Options:

• put the not-ready parts into shapes-3, publish fpwd of shapes-2
• put the ready parts into shapes-1, publish updated wd, let shapes-2 get a bit more work before fpwd

[fantasai]

@noamr What @svgeesus said. Wrt css-borders-4, the FPWD is "we are working on this idea, it is roughly scoped out like this, and there's general agreement on pursuing this direction (subject to potentially significant changes as we work through feedback)". It's not "we're done designing and ready to ship" -- that's what CR is for. So border-shape is totally fine for FPWD.

The hesitation on shape-inside/shape-padding is because we don't have agreement on fundamental aspects of how it should work (like with automatic sizes).

[fantasai]

This guide to the spec phases might be useful. :)

[noamr]

@noamr What @svgeesus said. Wrt css-borders-4, the FPWD is "we are working on this idea, it is roughly scoped out like this, and there's general agreement on pursuing this direction (subject to potentially significant changes as we work through feedback)". It's not "we're done designing and ready to ship" -- that's what CR is for. So border-shape is totally fine for FPWD.

The hesitation on shape-inside/shape-padding is because we don't have agreement on fundamental aspects of how it should work (like with automatic sizes).

Gotcha, thanks!
So my proposal atm would be to port shape() to css-shapes-1 and publish that.

[svgeesus]

So my proposal atm would be to port shape() to css-shapes-1 and publish that.

I agree that is the best option.

[css-meeting-bot]

The CSS Working Group just discussed FPWD of css-shapes-2 or porting shape() to css-shapes-1, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: Move shape() to css-shapes-1 and ask for wide review on that and maybe path() and add noamr as editor to css-shapes-1

The full IRC log of that discussion

Topic: FPWD of css-shapes-2 or porting shape() to css-shapes-1
github: https://github.com//issues/6900#issuecomment-2930919526
noamr: Time for a WD that includes the shape() function
noamr: There are other things in shapes-2 that are not ready for WD, so proposal is to move shape() to css-shapes-1 and publish a WD of that
scribe+ kbabbitt
noamr: Then it can live happily with the rest of the basic shapes
fantasai: seems reasonable
... shapes 1 is currently CR
... by moving it in maybe it will get published
... probably want to publish WD in ?? review
... try to move it back into CR
ChrisL: want to drop from CR?
fantasai: adding new feature, seems appropriate
astearns: Didn't drop for path()
astearns: but either way is fine by me
ChrisL: dropping the whole draft to WD is a signal we don't want to send, but it is a new feature
astearns: can we put the feature in and ask for wide review just the new feature?
ChrisL: would be fine
fantasai: I think we can do that
astearns: Move shape() to css-shapes-1 and when ready ask for wide review on that and maybe path()
astearns: any objections?
RESOLVED: Move shape() to css-shapes-1 and ask for wide review on that and maybe path() and add noamr as editor to css-shapes-1