On Thu, Nov 30, 2017, at 07:16 AM, Mats Palmgren wrote: > I think supporting only a subset of the valid values for a property > is problematic. > > CSS conformance rules says: > "[...] the user agent must parse the value according to the property > definition. This means that the user agent must accept all valid values > and must ignore declarations with invalid values." > https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/conform.html
It simply means we cannot state we are conformant to that spec in stage 1. That's not something seriously problematic. > Shipping support for a subset of the properties in a spec might make > sense > in some cases, but since you say: > > > The downside of the two-stage roll-out could raise web-compat issues > > because Blink and Webkit already support the entire module. > > it's not probably not a good idea in this case, for web-compat reasons. I'm not too concerned about this, actually. It really depends on whether web-compat issues from lacking of <image> support is worse than not supporting the property at all. I would argue that it isn't the case. shape-outside is mostly a cosmetic feature, and lack of support would unlikely cause anything more than some undesired appearance. In that case, authors probably don't even bother to use a feature detection at all. shape-outside itself has a popularity of 0.49% on Chrome Platform Status, which seems to be reasonably high, and I would be surprised if majority of that is using <image> rather than the simpler shape functions. Because of that, I don't really think web-compat would be a big issue for shipping this in two stages. - Xidorn _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
