3 ms·
Some additions are nice, but I have my doubts about where this is going. As usual, Google throws in tons of extra stuff. To compute the size, position and appea
by exceptione 2y ago
Some additions are nice, but I have my doubts about where this is going. As usual, Google throws in tons of extra stuff. To compute the size, position and appearance of anything, engines have to deal with a growing list of instructions, that all brings conflict. We had floats, flex, grids, position, and now anchor positioning as well.
It strikes me that the more useful additions are implemented by Firefox, and the lesser ones not.
I had expected that by now we would have a super light (kernel) spec for SPAs, and the heavier spec for design heavy documents. Chrome cannot keep up with Firefox wrt CSS performance.
I don't understand why Google is overloading its own camel; the web is not going to render faster with more added complexity.
- hmcdona1 2y agoI mean would you rather the browser handle this at a lower level where it can do so efficiently or libraries continue to solve these things on the main thread with pure javascript? The defacto way to handle anchoring views today is with something like Floating UI [1] and that doesn't even handle portaling content to root of the DOM except for in React. [1] https://floating-ui.com/ https://floating-ui.com/
- jongjong 2y agoSome of the additions are nice but I also think some of them just add unnecessary complexity. Some of them (e.g. the @layer feature) diverge from CSS fundamentals in a radical way and don't let you achieve anything new (just gives you more ways to get to the same place). My feeling is that Google is trying hard to lock developers into Chrome. I wish they had come up with a new standard and just invented a new simpler CSS alternative instead of adding more stuff on top of the existing standard.