Chris Lilley

I would like a pointer to the policy to never update any CR unless there is 100% test coverage. Verifying that there are tests for each proposed change is something...

Should we change the nterfaces along the same lines for [`@font-palette-values`](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-fonts-4/#font-palette-values) ? We currently have [The `CSSFontFeatureValuesRule` interface](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-fonts-4/#om-fontfeaturevalues) and [The `CSSFontPaletteValuesRule` interface](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-fonts-4/#om-fontpalettevalues)

On https://w3c.github.io/i18n-tests/results/cursive#text_opacity instead of linking to https://drafts.csswg.org/css-color-3/#transparency it would be better to link to https://www.w3.org/TR/css-color-4/#transparency for several reasons: - Color 4 is the current implementation target - Color 4 is...

I agree with @mirisuzanne that the emerging slight consensus seems to be to allow any of them, and with @LeaVerou that this does not preclude adding declarative names later. Meanwhile...

[CSS Text 3 CRD published 17 Jan 2023](https://www.w3.org/TR/2023/CRD-css-text-3-20230127/)

Who is doing the [FPWD transition requests](https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues) for those two?

> Who is doing the [FPWD transition requests](https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues) for those two? Thanks @fantasai - https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/487 - https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/488

[CSS Box 3 published 16 Feb 2023](https://www.w3.org/TR/2023/PR-css-box-3-20230216/)

[CSS Animations 2 FPWD](https://www.w3.org/TR/2023/WD-css-animations-2-20230302/) and [CSS Animations 1 WD](https://www.w3.org/TR/2023/WD-css-animations-1-20230302/) published today.

[CSS Text 4](https://www.w3.org/TR/2023/WD-css-text-4-20230301/) published 1 March