> > > > *Until this feature (correct me if I'm wrong), adding a unique ID to an > element was safe. With this feature, that's no longer the case.* > > > This seems like a worthwhile question to bring back to the TAG and/or the > CSSWG. Looking at the TAG review, it doesn't seem like it was discussed. >
Happy to take this back to TAG, but would defer to Vlad for next steps. Not counting on this leading to anything actionable though as Apple were very adamant about keeping things as is in the last few discussions about this, following the CSSWG process that things can stay in the spec unless there is a consensus to remove them. This should 100% *not* be the reasoning for shipping a feature we think is > bad. > If API owners think that this is "bad" then we definitely shouldn't ship it, or ship only match-element which everyone seems to agree on. I would describe this as "not ideal" and that keeping interop on this is the lesser evil. > Are we seeing real-life interop pressure? How many sites are already using > `auto`? What's the user experience in Chromium for ones that do? > It's not an existing backwards compat issue. But we'd be introducing a slight inconsistency from the get go which IMO is arguably worse than shipping the whole thing. As a web developer I'd probably end up being confused by this whole thing if Webkit and chromium end up shipping something slightly different with a lack of consensus attached to it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAJn%3DMYaAs5vpAA0hhk2otCYjoP%3DWGOrtHbNs%3DR_BM7EVyUGXcg%40mail.gmail.com.
