[css-anchor-position-1] Request for FPWD

[tabatkins]

Spec draft: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-anchor-position-1/

[css-meeting-bot]

The CSS Working Group just discussed [css-anchor-position-1] Request for FPWD, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: FPWD of css-anchor-positioning

The full IRC log of that discussion

<emilio> TabAtkins: we talked about anchor positioning from a while back
<emilio> ... spec is pretty mature, our experimental impl is looking pretty good
<emilio> ... definitely still work to be done
<emilio> ... both in terms of making things well defined and features
<florian> q+
<emilio> ... but we'd like to implement in the relatively near future
<emilio> ... if there's questions I'm happy to answer
<emilio> ... otherwise I think people are familiar with the stuff
<emilio> florian: I agree from maturity it makes sense for FPWD maybe even more
<emilio> ... curious about other implementors
<emilio> ... at least about making sure they are not against this approach
<jensimmons> q+
<Rossen_> ack florian
<emilio> TabAtkins: WebKit has been at least reading it
<emilio> q+
<emilio> jensimmons: it's been something we've tried to look at and discuss
<Rossen_> ack jensimmons
<emilio> ... not sure how deep engineers have looked at it
<emilio> ... we've been pretty busy
<emilio> ... there's been some feedback about the spec not being quite ready for shipping
<emilio> florian: but not push back about being in the wrong direction right?
<emilio> Rossen_: not talking about shipping yet
<florian> +1
<emilio> jensimmons: It'd be great to have more time for review before folks ship it
<fantasai> scribe+
<fantasai> emilio: I want to say the same. I agree it's a problem that would be useful to solve
<TabAtkins> emilio: I agree this is a problem that would b euseful to solve.
<fantasai> ... I"m not sure about the general direction of defining things, e.g. .... CB
<TabAtkins> emilio: In general - not sure aobut particular syntax, but the general ability here is not objectionable
<fantasai> ... I don't think it's objectionable to publish
<fantasai> ... I agree with jensimmons it would be good to have time to review and prototype
<fantasai> ... I don't think there is any blocker, this is terribly wrong kind of thing on our side
<fantasai> ... so I would support FPWD
<florian> q?
<fantasai> jensimmons: It's on the roadmap for Chrome to ship in August
<fantasai> ... that's really soon
<Rossen_> ack emilio
<fantasai> ... would be better to have more time to review and participate in shaping the feature
<emilio> Rossen_: seems folks are happy for fpwd and we want to make sure we don't ship prematurely
<emilio> fantasai: what I hear is chrome was FPWD because it's shipping in August and they think there's only minor stuff
<emilio> TabAtkins: that's not what I said
<emilio> fantasai: but it's on your roadmap to ship?
<emilio> fantasai: what I'm hearing from jen and emilio is that they'd like time to review and probably have significant feedback
<jensimmons> I should correct myself, it's on Chrome's roadmap for 117, going to beta in August, and ship in early September. https://chromestatus.com/roadmap
<emilio> ... and some non-minor things might need changing
<emilio> ... I don't object to FPWD, it's probably past time for FPWD, I think we have agreement on this being worth solving and going in the right general direction
<TabAtkins> (I actually thought we'd already done FPWD some time ago, and was surprised that we hadn't.)
<emilio> ... so I hear full support for FPWD but uncomfortableness about shipping in two months
<emilio> Rossen_: I'm hearing that FPWD is not objected
<emilio> ... and mostly supported
<emilio> ... I'd like to take a call for objections and resolve that
<emilio> ... I'm wanting to hear from tab if there's anything else he want's to put on the record about implementation or shipping / testing / whatever
<emilio> ... but let's not relate the two and hold off on one based on the other
<emilio> RESOLVE: FPWD of css-anchor-positioning
<emilio> RESOLVED: FPWD of css-anchor-positioning
<emilio> Rossen_: tab do you want to correct some of the record about the shipping status?
<emilio> TabAtkins: We're open with our shipping status, we're planning on shipping on 117 _if there are no major changes_, so that's why we want FPWD and review
<florian> q+ to ask about TAG and HR
<emilio> q+
<emilio> fantasai: sounds like you want to get to CR within the next month or two?
<florian> q-
<emilio> ... have you requested all of the horizontal reviews and so on?
<fantasai> s/get/functionally get/
<emilio> TabAtkins: no, haven't yet because spec still needs some changes
<emilio> fantasai: but you want horizontal reviews within a month or two which are very busy
<emilio> TabAtkins: this is mostly extending abspos positioning
<emilio> ... we mostly need implementation review from other implementors
<emilio> ... to make sure that the features are covered and we don't rely on details of our impl
<emilio> jensimmons: CSSWG usually goes to FPWD and have enough time for reviewing from a variety of groups and experts
<emilio> ... and this seems very fast specially at a time where folks might go on vacation
<tantek> +1 jensimmons — this feels unusual for the "normal" CSSWG workmode
<emilio> ... I get chrome is in the position to write a spec and ship, but this feels very fast
<jensimmons> I'm not assuming bad intent.
<emilio> Rossen_: let's stop this here, we have a resolution for FPWD
<jensimmons> I'm asking for time for everyone else to participate. As we normally do.
<emilio> q?
<TabAtkins> bare minimum of ~2 months, that's not "a few weeks" by any definition of "few"
<florian> +1 to Jen
<emilio> q-
<tantek> Thanks TabAtkins
<emilio> +1 to having more time, for reviewing anchor-positioning fwiw

[tabatkins]

Lol, we actually resolved FPWD back in February (https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2023Feb/0005.html), I just didn't get around to actually doing the publication.

So, hey, this has been publicly stated as ready and requesting WG review for at least four months now.