With all the recent CSS improvements I still miss the possibility to have working transition to "height:auto". The issue [1] on csswg-drafts is the most upvoted one. At least we can now use css grid and track sizes transitions, but it's far from intuitive, transition for "height:auto" should just work.
[1]: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/626
In CSS Is Fun Againw3c
csswg-drafts
Bikeshed2016–2026
w3c / csswg-drafts
csswg-drafts
CSS Working Group Editor Drafts
87Distinct people
121Mentions
3Explicit recommenders
4.9KGitHub stars
What to know before exploring
What it is
CSS Working Group Editor Drafts
GitHub
Where it is used
No documented product use was verified in the last source check.
What people are saying
Huh (having scanned but not read in detail the post), interesting approach. I'm not that well-versed in this area (as a game developer, I tend to jump straight to…
jan_Inkepa used a recommendation phrase. 3 indexed comments match. This is a phrase match, not a verdict.
No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.
Also in these discussions
No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.
This week on Hacker News
Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 9:02:44 AM UTC.
No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.
Mentions over time
HN mentions by year121 dated mentions
Observed mentions: 2016-09-21 13:16:42 UTC to 2026-10-08 18:33:14 UTC.
* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.
Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.
View mention counts and date ranges
| Period | Start (UTC) | End (exclusive, UTC) | Mentions | Submissions | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 2017 | 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 8 | 2 | 6 |
| 2018 | 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 6 | 2 | 4 |
| 2019 | 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 8 | 1 | 7 |
| 2020 | 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 13 | 3 | 10 |
| 2021 | 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 10 | 1 | 9 |
| 2022 | 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 19 | 3 | 16 |
| 2023 | 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 20 | 3 | 17 |
| 2024 | 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 10 | 0 | 10 |
| 2025 | 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 15 | 0 | 15 |
| 2026 (partial) | 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 11 | 2 | 9 |
From the project README
An excerpt from the repository, fetched Nov 13, 2026.
Read the project’s introduction
Types of Workflows
workflows/build-specs.yml - builds the entire repository of Editor's Drafts, along with a summary page. Also builds any .issues Issues-List files, and Markdown files. Deploys all the results to the repo's gh-pages
workflows/SPEC-NAME-1.yml - each of these auto-publish one spec in the repo. Do not modify them by hand; they are auto-generated by generate-auto-publish-workflows.py and auto-publish-template.yml. Instead, update and run this .py file and commit the results.
Read the full README on GitHubWhat Hacker News says
20 sourcesProposed "au" unit for CSS provides for styling on an astronomical scale
19 points · Open discussionMasonry isn’t ready to be shipped as there are still quite a few open spec issues [^1] that need to be resolved first.
[^1]: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3...
In The Future of CSS: Easy Light-Dark Mode Color Switching with Light-Dark()Very true! Nonetheless this approach would also break compatibility with `color-scheme`'s custom identifiers, which is just bad in general for CSS even for these small projects. The alternative proposal I put together here would allow this to scale and still provide a helper function for small projects to use: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7561#issuecomment...
In The Future of CSS: Easy Light-Dark Mode Color Switching with Light-Dark()I strongly prefer this more flexible/future proof proposal:
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7561#issuecomment...
In The Future of CSS: Easy Light-Dark Mode Color Switching with Light-Dark()FWIW, I added a comment here around a simple but more flexible proposal, that allows for easy light/dark theming via this approach, but would at least scale (and would allow for color-scheme's custom identifier support to be useful): https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7561#issuecomment...
In The Future of CSS: Easy Light-Dark Mode Color Switching with Light-Dark()the irc log is here: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7542#issuecomment...
i had the same reaction, it seems like a very weird syntax. but after reading the discussion i get it: you're telling a form field to behave like a normal html element, instead of behaving like a form field. because normal elements grow to fit their content, and form fields not doing that is not normal.
In CSS solves auto-expanding textareas (probably, eventually)For those wondering, it’s not live yet. Chrome Canary just shipped it (behind a flag?) but it’s still up in the air, even the property name itself.
Follow: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7542
In CSS solves auto-expanding textareas (probably, eventually)I'm talking about on the web.
Apple proposed the standard: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3299
Safari 12.1 was the first browser to ship with color-scheme and prefers-color-scheme support: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@media/pref... https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/me...
In Ask HN: What are some well-designed websites?Standardize tooltip styling and expose as ::tooltip
1 points · Open discussion> If you have wide non-text content, for example an img, then the page will not necessarily appear at scale 1.
Hmm, interesting. Thanks for the correction; I confirm this in Chromium’s responsive design mode. Also that (as expected) if you’ve got suitable `max-width: 100%; height: auto` incantations so that it doesn’t actually overflow, this doesn’t apply, and you stay with an initial scale of 1. Frankly, I think that removing initial-scale=1 while developing might be a good thing, since it’ll make overflow more obvious, but I now have a clearer understanding of initial-scale’s purpose and default value. I suppose that means that it’s probably still desirable in general, as most causes of overflow are probably better handled by inducing scrolling rather than scaling the whole document down.
Need to file an issue to fix https://developer.m
Read the rest
ozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Viewport_m... which claims the default is 1, then. Going to add a blog post about this to my TODO list as well, since I had erroneously thought it was solely about that Safari orientation change bug, and have mentioned that belief a few times here on HN and probably misled others thereby.
(Found some potentially relevant spec, too: https://www.w3.org/TR/css-device-adapt/#handling-auto-zoom, though I’m not sure quite what the situation is, HTML Standard seems to cite that spec but a csswg draft, and that link’s a 404, and the @viewport stuff hasn’t ever been implemented and has been retired <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4766>, so I’m not sure if there’s actually any nominally-active spec for meta viewport at present.)
The CSS Working Group has resolved to relax the syntax in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7961 so what you desire is coming :)
In Conditional CSS with:has and:nth-last-childsystem-ui is not suitable for general web content. Apps might have an argument for using it, but general web content should not use it. https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3658 has some details (mostly by others, but I chip in towards the end), and I’ve written more in other threads here on HN too which you can search for.
(That `box-sizing: content-box` is a good default might be my most unpopular CSS opinion, but writing off system-ui is probably not too far off it. But I care more about it because it’s one that actually affects users, not just developers. Maybe I should get round to pestering browser makers to improve their defaults for the sans-serif generic family so that “proxy for a maybe-prettier sans-serif” goes away as a reason to use system-ui.)
In Show HN: Neat – Minimalist CSS FrameworkShowing the 15 most recent of 20 sources. Enable JavaScript to search and browse every indexed mention.