Rechartering 2022-2024

[svgeesus]

Time goes by fast. I see CSS WG is chartered to 30 Sept 2022 which is less than 3 months away.

https://www.w3.org/2020/12/css-wg-charter.html

Time to get rechartering underway, I guess!

Looking at the current charter and comparing the projected timeline with actuality:

Timeline

Q4 2019: REC for CSS Containment Module Level 1
W3C Recommendation, 22 December 2020

Q4 2019: REC for CSS Writing Modes Level 3
W3C Recommendation, 10 December 2019

Q2 2020: REC for CSS Values and Units Module Level 3
Candidate Recommendation, 6 June 2019

Q2 2020: REC for CSS Custom Properties for Cascading Variables Module Level 1
Candidate Recommendation Snapshot, 16 June 2022

Q2 2020: REC for CSS Flexible Box Layout Module Level 1
Candidate Recommendation Snapshot, 16 June 2022

Q3 2020: REC for CSS Cascading and Inheritance Level 3
W3C Recommendation, 11 February 2021

Q3 2020: REC for Compositing and Blending Level 1
Candidate Recommendation, 13 January 2015

Q4 2020: REC for CSS Conditional Rules Module Level 3
Candidate Recommendation Snapshot, 13 January 2022

Q2 2021: REC for CSS Backgrounds and Borders Module Level 3
Candidate Recommendation Draft, 26 July 2021

Q1 2022: REC for CSS Cascading and Inheritance Level 4
Candidate Recommendation Snapshot, 13 January 2022

Q2 2022: REC for CSS Image Values and Replaced Content Module Level 3
Candidate Recommendation Draft, 17 December 2020

Q2 2022: REC for Media Queries Level 4
Candidate Recommendation Draft, 25 December 2021

[svgeesus]

Draft charter for review by CSS WG

Changes are:

• Text that came from the charter template updated to use any newer text from current template
• Link to new CSS IPR page
• Removed mention of closed CSS-A11y TF
• Removed mention of effectively defunct SVG WG
• Removed specs from milestones that we actually got to Rec (as mentioned above)
• Bumped dates by 3 years for the ones that we didn't. (needs discussion of reasonable dates)
• All current specs updated with last publication date, date of exclusion draft, and so on (needs to be updated between now and date of sending to AC for review, if we publish more)
• Added the next three CSS snapshots

Here is a diff but as usual moved text is handled poorly, and the drafts are listed from oldest to newest so the order is necessarily different and the diff is confused completely for that section.

The first para from Success Criteria was originally template but was changed a fair bit in the current charter, and I am tempted to put it back in the new charter too because it is better.

I also see some places where the W3C database is wrong, for example those embarassing-looking 2009 publications of Transforms 3D and Transforms 2D actually redirect to the 2019 CR of Transforms 1 and the last publication of Shapes 1 was indeed in 2014 but as a CR. Still checking that list.

[css-meeting-bot]

The CSS Working Group just discussed Introductions.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Topic: Introductions
<florian> Florian, Invited Expert
<Rossen_> Rossen, Microsoft
<emilio> emilio, Mozilla
<astearns> Alan Stearns, Adobe
<fantasai> Elika J Etemad aka fantasai, Invited Expert
<miriam> Miriam, Invited Expert
<TabAtkins> Tab Atkins: Google
<iank_> Ian Kilpatrick, Google
<lea> Lea Verou, Invited Expert
<lea> Chris Lilley, W3C
<lea> prsent+ ChrisL
<rachelandrew> Rachel Andrew, Google
<fremy> Francois REMY, Invited Expert
<jfkthame> Jonathan Kew, Mozilla
<oriol> Oriol Brufau, Igalia
<dbaron> David Baron, Google
<TabAtkins> ScribeNick: TabAtkins
<TabAtkins> chris: We have a charter, but it's running out
<TabAtkins> ChrisL: We have two years (tried for three once, but people complained)
<TabAtkins> ChrisL_: kinda pointless, this is a permanent group, but whatever
<TabAtkins> ChrisL_: made a new charter based on the new template
<TabAtkins> ChrisL_: it's supposed to list all our drafs and status and such, been done
<TabAtkins> ChrisL: last year we had 10 specs we said would get to rec. 3 of them made it, 7 didn't
<TabAtkins> ChrisL: it's worthwhile discussing what specs we do think can get to Rec this year
<Rossen_> q?
<florian> q+
<TabAtkins> ChrisL: also there was some lang in th enew template that i actually prefer the old lang. you can se ein the diff
<TabAtkins> ChrisL: anything else that people think should be changed - tried ot keep it as simple as possible
<TabAtkins> ChrisL: AC doesn't like changes, they'll want justification
<TabAtkins> ChrisL: So that's it. shouldn't take long to get this agenda done
<Rossen_> ack florian
<TabAtkins> florian: Two comments. You say you started from the template
<TabAtkins> florian: But to the extent we can I'd like to keep our existing text. and template isn't a requirement
<TabAtkins> ChrisL: normally when i do a new charter i'd start from template. here we started from existing, changed to template, looked at diff, and chose piece by piece
<TabAtkins> fantasai: changes look fine to me
<TabAtkins> florian: You also said we need to list milestone
<TabAtkins> florian: charter says milestone dates "when avaialble" if not available we can skip, and that's intentional
<TabAtkins> astearns: we tried to do that in the last charter iteration, but wasn't allowed
<TabAtkins> florian: AC or PLH?
<TabAtkins> ChrisL: both, we were asked why no milestones
<TabAtkins> ChrisL: just the path of least resistance
<Rossen_> q?
<TabAtkins> florian: thanks for doing this, btw
<TabAtkins> chrishtr: I think we have more specs in our charter than all other WGs combined; we're >50% of the entire official output of the W3C
<TabAtkins> s/chrishtr /chrisl/
<TabAtkins> ChrisL: So like Variables I'd like to take to Rec today, maybe MQ4.
<TabAtkins> ChrisL: Deciding can be done in the issue, if people want to shift timelines
<TabAtkins> ChrisL: meanwhile charter is doing horiz review, that takes a few weeks
<TabAtkins> ChrisL: then it'll go to W3M, then AC for comments
<TabAtkins> ChrisL: That may run out our charter time, if so we'll get 3mon extension, no big deal
<TabAtkins> florian: If you get pushback on boilerplate rather than substance, happy to pushback from the AB side
<TabAtkins> ChrisL: So that's it unless there's questions
<florian> github: https://github.com//issues/7468
<TabAtkins> ChrisL: Part of th enew process requires, if you have a CR, you ahve to repub every 6 months, otherwise you ahve to publish a heartbeat explaining why
<TabAtkins> ChrisL: New thing.
<TabAtkins> ChrisL: So for the next year I'm gonna be a huge pain in the ass
<TabAtkins> florian: Just fyi the process req is a SHOULD, and that's good if things have changed. if they haven't changed, not required and probably shouldn't
<TabAtkins> chrishtr: Right, anything that is in the ED but not in the CR isn't covered by patent policy. If it hasn't change,d we're missing nothing
<dbaron> s/chrishtr/ChrisL/

[frivoal]

In section 3, Success Criteria, the old charter (mostly) used the term "module", which has been replaced with the term "specification" in this proposed update. It should shift back to module, This was intentional, because higher up in the charter, we claim

There is a single deliverable, the CSS specification. The CSS specification is large, and is divided into a series of modules.

The Process itself doesn't define the word "Specification" (it talks about technical reports), so we're free to use it this way and define each of our technical reports to be a module if we like it. But we should try and keep it consistent.

Similarly, in section 8, we should probably say either "technical report" rather than "Web Specification".

[svgeesus]

Fixed, except for:

• patent policy, because "W3C seeks to issue Web Specifications" is correct (and CSS is one such)
• CSS 2.1 Specification, because that was indeed the whole of CSS at the time

[svgeesus]

So, which specifications are likely to make it to Rec in the next year?

I'm thinking CSS Variables 1 and Media Queries 4 are strong candidates

[SebastianZ]

Looking at https://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work.en.html, what about the stable specs there? Namely

• CSS Conditional 3
• CSS Backgrounds 3
• CSS Counter Styles 3
• CSS Flexbox 1
• CSS Multi-col 1
• CSS Values 3

I don't know how good their test coverage actually is, but looking at the current ratios of passing tests they seem to be good candidates as well.

The following also seem to be possible candidates as currently being at CR, having a lot of tests and a relatively high passing rate:

• CSS Grid 1
• CSS Will Change 1
• CSS Cascade 4
• CSS Conditional 4

Sebastian

[svgeesus]

Closing because we did, indeed, recharter for 2022-24 :)