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]

FPWD of CSS Overflow 5 published 17 Dec

[svgeesus]

FPWD of CSS Display 4 and FPWD of CSS Multicol 2 published 19 Dec

[nt1m]

I want to request FPWD for CSS Forms 1: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-forms-1/

[css-meeting-bot]

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

• RESOLVED: Publish FPWD of CSS Forms

The full IRC log of that discussion

<TabAtkins> ntim: I'd like to request FPWD of Forms
<TabAtkins> ntim: currently an unofficial draft, woudl like to get ball rolling
<TabAtkins> ntim: the current draft defines appearance:base, and a set of pseudo-elements for form controls
<TabAtkins> ntim: a few more things for form control styling
<TabAtkins> ntim: this has been discussed in teh joint openui/csswg meetingws
<TabAtkins> astearns: there are a bunch of open issues, so clearly people are interested
<TabAtkins> astearns: are there also pending PRs?
<TabAtkins> ntim: yes, i've approved most of them. currently one left open, i think
<TabAtkins> astearns: so your intent is to merge everything we've got in the pipeline before fpwd?
<TabAtkins> ntim: not necessarily
<TabAtkins> astearns: i'd like to get some more co-editors to help out
<TabAtkins> astearns: would you prefer that before fpwd, or after?
<TabAtkins> ntim: after
<TabAtkins> astearns: k, i'll plan to do that right after fpwd
<TabAtkins> no questions, spec looks reasoanble for an early fpwd
<TabAtkins> ??: can someone remind me about the process? what does being a WD do?
<TabAtkins> astearns: a FPWD is our intent to work on this. IPR becomes an issue for merging things into an official FPWD, as opposed to an editor's draft that hasn't been adopted yet.
<florian> q+
<astearns> ack florian
<TabAtkins> florian: yeah, until it's a WD of some kind (incluing FPWD) it's not actuallya deliverable fo the group, this is the official start
<TabAtkins> florian: as mentioned, this has patent implications, W3C patent rules start applying to WD, not EDs
<TabAtkins> florian: member companies don't need to license things just because we start publishiing, but they do need to start paying attention. their lawyers will get a notification, becuase eventually they'll need to license patents if they don't object.
<TabAtkins> fantasai: the name is "first PUBLIC working draft"; in the past editor's draft werent' public so this was the first that was public
<TabAtkins> fantasai: in the interest of "release early, release often" we don't want to wait for a polished spec, but want it up enough that people know how the spec is going to go
<TabAtkins> fantasai: major conflicts, might want to delay for a bit. like in Variables, early on there were a lot of possible directions and none of them caught traction.
<TabAtkins> fantasai: when we finally hit on the current model and it caught, we finally made the FPWD for it
<TabAtkins> fantasai: so the point at which you're aksing for feedback outsdie the WD, that's when yous hould FPWD
<TabAtkins> florian: other topic. I understand this is also supposed to take over some parts of CSS UI 4
<TabAtkins> florian: some issues in the spec asking about taking over bits
<fantasai> s/major conflicts/major conflicts in underlying model/
<TabAtkins> florian: i think we probably should, for most at least. don't think we need to solve those for fpwd, since the text is already in a spec, but we should decide on which things move and which things stay soonish.
<TabAtkins> florian: happy to work with Tim to figure this out either before or after fpwd, whatever's helpful
<TabAtkins> ntim: let's do it after
<TabAtkins> ntim: i think it's weird to move something from a higher level spec to an unofficial draft
<TabAtkins> florian: sure, so FPWD to get the new stuff, then migrate once it's official. works for me.
<astearns> ack fantasai
<TabAtkins> fantasai: some notes, FPWD patent stuff is like 90 days or 120 days from the first public draft for the timer to kick in, so even if you add stuff afterwards, it's as if it was in the fpwd
<TabAtkins> fantasai: also note, all Working Drafts have some degree of patent protections, while none of our Editors Drafts do. so it's actually important ot publish your drafts.
<TabAtkins> astearns: proposed resolution is to publish a FPWD of CSS Forms. Objecteions?
<TabAtkins> RESOLVED: Publish FPWD of CSS Forms

[svgeesus]

• RESOLVED: Publish FPWD of CSS Forms

Published 25 March 2025

[kbabbitt]

I'd like to request FPWD of CSS Gap Decorations level 1.

[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

<emeyer> astearns: Any concerns about FPWD for this module?
<emeyer> …Or anyone who’d like to take time to review the edits before moving on?
<emeyer> …Objections?
<emeyer> (none)
<emeyer> 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

<JoshT> Topic: FPWD for CSS Custom Functions
<JoshT> Rossen: We need FPWD so people can ship
<fantasai> github:
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//issues/6900
<TabAtkins> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-mixins-1/
<JoshT> TabAtkins: We've been talking about mixins spec for a while. Discussed in F2F.
<JoshT> ... believe spec is ready for FPWD
<fantasai> We are *overdue* for FPWD...
<JoshT> ... close to ready for CR
<JoshT> ... at least FPWD. let's resolve to do it.
<JoshT> Rossen: Any issues with that?
<astearns> +1 to FPWD
<lea> +1 to FPWD (and to fantasai's comment)
<florian> sure, go ahead. If it's nearly ready for CR, it really ought to get on TR at all
<JoshT> RESOLVED: Publish FPWD of CSS Custom Functions
<JoshT> TabAtkins: I'll get publication started.
<Rossen5> q?
<Rossen5> ack fantasai
<JoshT> fantasai: I wanted to find out plan for review of draft.
<JoshT> TabAtkins: As in when we ping other groups?
<JoshT> fantasai: and blog and trying to get people to look at it
<fantasai> s/and blog/yes and blog/
<JoshT> TabAtkins: We've had shakeup of staff so may be difficult, but I will take care of those.
<JoshT> ... I don't think this needs wider review from a11y or i18n?
<JoshT> fantasai: I still think we need to ping them all because requirement for CR
<astearns> ping everyone and let them say “no comment”
<JoshT> ... so publish blog post, ping groups
<JoshT> jensimmons: it's worth taking the time to get dev and browser team feedback
<PaulG> (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
<JoshT> ... I know it takes time, but we are at our best as WG when things have baked well before shipping
<JoshT> TabAtkins: Early feedback has been positive. YouTube personalities seem to like it.
<JoshT> ... 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