csswg-drafts

this simple approach proved helpful to us (Mozilla) last year, so we decided to do more or less the same again. [1] https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10537

re and it will return all the rulesets for that property. To see how people are using CSS, I'd recommend: - https://codepen.io/ - Mastodon/fediverse - Reason: All other social networks only have webdevs who sip the coolaid of whatever trend is happening at the moment, they're not actually interested in learning what CSS can do. However, the web devs in the fediverse are actually interested in what CSS can do. To see future CSS: - You can see the proposals here: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues - Proposals often require experiments which you can find on mastodon/fediverse. For example: https://front-end.social/@kizu There's also the yearly State of CSS survey to get an overall sense of it: https://2026.stateofcss.com/en-US/

lls the user agent to apply the scaling factor from env(preferred-text-scale) to the entire page. We expect it will become best practice for authors to use this meta tag, just as they would use the viewport meta tag. The environment variable would be reserved for atypical use cases." There's no need for a text-scale CSS property because font-size already exists. The latter explainer [2] suggests that developers use font-size: calc(100% * env(preferred-text-scale)) to get the desired effect, if they are doing this in CSS rather than with just the meta tag. [1] https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/blob/main/css-env-1/expl... [2] https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/blob/main/css-env-1/expl...

efault `min-inline-size` than flow, and `flex-basis` overrides `inline-size` if it isn’t `auto`, which is its initial value, until you use the recommended `flex` shorthand, at which point it becomes `0%`, unless you redefine it explicitly. Table layout[1] uses a special shrink-wrapping algorithm, which the CSS authors noted back in CSS 2 might make sense to add a way to work more like a regular block-level element, and then that just never happened. Grid is a mix of implicit and explicit placements with competing ways to do the same things (named areas, number ranges, templates on the parent, properties on the child) and a bunch of special sizing algorithm keywords like `minmax` and `fit-content` which only work in grid, some of which also work in flex, most of which don’t work in flow, but some of them do now, but they didn’t before. You can select your elements with the old CSS 3 selectors, or `:where`, or `:is`, or `&`, or `:has` (but not if they’re nested), or `@scope`, or `@layer`. Definitely don’t try to put trailing commas on your selector lists, though, since that’s not syntactically valid in CSS, until it is, in some future revision. To make sure your site works correctly with all scripts, all the directional keywords now have logical versions with `inline` and `block` keywords. Unless it’s a transform[2]. Or a gradient[3]. That’ll probably eventually be fixed, just keep checking the spec periodically until you have to re-learn something that used to be false is now true. Which is how “learning” CSS works. There is never an end. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are also all the CSS units, colours, the whole animation engine, forms, pseudo-classes, pseudo-elements, containment, paints, filter effects, environment variables (yes, those are a thing), maths functions, overflow, scroll snaps, backgrounds and borders, feature queries, font features, writing modes, the different-but-not-really CSS of SVG, the half-forgotten weirdo things like `border-image` and `clip-path`, or the half-dozen other major and minor CSS features which I am not even thinking of right now. CSS doesn’t suck “because we don’t bother learning it”. CSS sucks because its core strength is its core weakness. It is infinitely flexible and extensible, and that means it has been flexed and extended to fulfil every design trend and address every edge case. Then it needs to support all of those things forever. Making CSS do what you want as a web developer has probably never been easier, but “learning” CSS has never been harder. [0] Please, for my own sanity, resist the urge to pedantically nitpick in the responses about whether everything in my list is actually a “layout model”. I am aware that some of these things overlap more than others. This is just my list. You can make your own list. It’s fine. [1] Tables also create their own anonymous layout block such that a child `<caption>` element is drawn outside the putative `<table>` in the actual layout. Framesets do a similar thing with `<legend>`. These are all things that are the result of having to retroactively shoehorn weirdo features into CSS in a backwards-compatible way, but that doesn’t make it any less insane to learn. [2] https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1544 [3] https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1724

d in our previous article, “masonry” is not an ideal name, since it represents a metaphor, and not a direct description of its purpose. It’s also not a universally used name for this kind of layout. Many developers call it “waterfall layout” instead, which is also a metaphor. > Many of you have made suggestions for a better name. Two have stood out, collapse and pack as in — grid-template-rows: collapse or grid-template-rows: pack. Which do you like better? Or do you have another suggestion? Comment on [this issue] specifically about a new value name (for the Just Use grid option). — https://webkit.org/blog/16026/css-masonry-syntax/#footnote-1 > [css-grid-3] Renaming masonry keyword — https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9733

how nearest-neighbouring filtering works. I hope at some point it stabilizes lol - I note in the discussion linked nobody else cares about backwards compatibility ...).