[urgernt / blocked]

David: i am basically OK with it unless something has changed recently.

Peter: Alice some responses here to your questions...

Alice: i need to clarify this... I can take it off-line.

Peter: loop back in a week?

Alice: yeah

Dan: This one seems a little stalled.

David: CSS WG still thinks it's a think, but maybe it's not progressing super rapidly...

Tess: David and I were at the HOudini meeting a couple of weeks ago, not much progress was made there on the spec.

Dan: How should we be treating this, from a delivery of value to our stakeholders POV?

David: I think it's still worth reviewing, I think the discussion isn't happening in CSSWG because people think the discussion has already happened. The filer was going to implement it in Chrome, I think.

Tess: Sounds like they need feedback from other implementers, rather than us.

Dan: adding a Houdini label. Should we put this on for next week?

Tess: can we do two weeks?

Dan: Ok. Do we need a breakout?

Tess: might be useful.

[we examine the state of the issue]

Alice: we could follow up asking for the new proposal....

Tess: i can get feedback from colleagues

David: this spec is about css property extensibility - turn custom properties into something that looks more like a real css property. Some of the discussion regarding scripting... could be scary.

[discussion of Alex's comment]

Tess : lots of concerns...

David: a thing that might be interesting to explore int the future...

Alice: issue with the (lack of) explainer...

Dan: user need needs to be better documented...

David: easier to polyfill css properties with higher fidelity.

Alice: has the ship sailed?

[Alice took action to find out implementation status and leave comment if appropriate - we will circle back in a week]

David: i was supposed to schedule a breakout - will see if we can do that for later this week.

[following up on slack to organise breakout