-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Suggest split Container Style Queries into custom properties and standard properties #6842
Comments
I'm not sure that Style Queries for standard properties will ever happen. It's likely it will not. |
The resolution from last week indicates that they'll be added to level 4. Anyway, in regard of the resolution, I suggest to just change the feature title and description to note that they only apply to custom properties for now. Once Style Queries for standard properties become a thing, a new entry can be added to cover them. Sebastian |
What's more, Safari 18 will support it: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safari-release-notes/safari-18-release-notes#CSS |
Yes, Safari 18 beta supports CSS Container Style Queries for custom properties. We are supportive of the idea of making that page its own feature, since support for all properties is separate in the specification. |
For the foreseeable future, style queries will be only for custom properties in all browsers. I do think non-custom property queries should be treated as a distinct feature, currently with no support. And the browsers that support custom property queries should show full support for that feature. Since the browsers are treating these as distinct features, authors are as well, and support data should reflect that. |
The first standard of Container Style Queries is CSS Containment 3.
But there's some questions for standard properties usage: w3c/csswg-drafts#7185
Chrome implementd it only for custom properties.
Webkit expressed support position fot custom properties: WebKit/standards-positions#57
MDN data only shows the custom properties usage.
So is it necessary to split it into the two pages?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: