sideshowbarker

> Would it be simpler to just say that local rules, rules that have no layer names or anonymous layer - @layer {...} - have the highest priority compared with...

> What license does it need to be? For MDN purposes any license that allows the work to be reused is fine. Otherwise it’s up to you — with the...

@timeowilliams This seems to be waiting on your response to https://github.com/mdn/content/pull/13877#issuecomment-1079742220

Thanks much, and congrats on landing your first docs change here — welcome aboard 🎉

@bshramin https://github.com/mdn/content/pull/13661#pullrequestreview-961175095 notes the following: > the PR doesn't seem to incorporate the review comments at https://github.com/mdn/content/pull/13661#pullrequestreview-903288145 Do you plan on updating the PR to address those review comments?

Andy, thanks much, and congrats on landing your first docs change here — welcome aboard 🎉

Thanks for raising this. I believe https://drafts.csswg.org/css-contain-3/#contain-property is the specific spec section that’s relevant. For the record here, quoting that: > 2. Strong Containment: the contain property > > >...

Fixing this also needs to include: * updating the syntax definition in https://github.com/mdn/data/blob/ed1833d1ba4f6bbd037e9a9b5e6017e1177568cf/css/properties.json#L4191-L4192 * updating the in-article syntax block at: https://github.com/mdn/content/blob/40c173c51db62c5ec00ad69c7dca5be965cb8978/files/en-us/web/css/contain/index.md?plain=1#L31-L45 * adding the value and a prose description for...

> Perhaps an update to the BCD would also be necessary. @hamishwillee landed that in https://github.com/mdn/browser-compat-data/pull/17469 > None of the browsers I tested seem to allow combining `inline-size` with other...

> If no browser ever implemented this and the specification was dropped, why don't we drop this page entirely? In general I wish we would do that in all cases...