1.0.0 roadmap

[MoOx]

Please comment here what you want to see in v1.0.0 & vote (+1/-1) for the things you want to see/don't see.

API

• browsers option a la autoprefixer (not useful right now, but I hope will be in the future)
• preserve option that will make output more like autoprefixer (spoiler: dangerous option if we consider how buggy are variables & calc are in Firefox)

Features

• rem fallback (still used for some people - according to browsers options, this will probably be disabled by default)
• :matches support
• nested media queries
• image-set()
• svg filters fallback
• more old fallback? (opacity anyone?)

---

You can also consider API & available features are enough for v1.0.0 (but I don't think so).

---

If you see some other things I don't think about, please express yourself :)

[Macxim]

• browsers option 👍
• rem fallback 👍 (unfortunately)
• :matches 👍
• svg filters fallback 👍

Thank you again for your work.
It's nice to taste the future 🚀

[kud]

I must admit I'm already glad with the current version.

[magsout]

rem fallback : -1

[bloodyowl]

👍 for the optional rem fallback. doing it yourself creates a lot of unnecessary redundancy.
👍 for nested media queries

[iamvdo]

• browsers option: -1. As you say, not useful for now.
• rem: -1. This is not future CSS, it's now.
• :matches(): +1
• SVG filters: -1. Same as rem.
• Nested MQs: -1. Same as rem.
• image-set(): 0. No opinion.

You should focus on CSS next features, not on fallbacks. Same apply on prefixes, import: cssnext doesn't have to deal with that.

[MoOx]

@iamvdo It's weird from you that -1 several features that you current tool use already.

You are saying that rem & other things are the past but they are not.
As I'm writing this comment:

• I can't use rem for a big client (airbus) because they have lots IE8 and I don't want to add another tool in my workflow just for "old" stuff.
• SVG filters doesn't work in Firefox, like css custom props doesn't work in Chrome
• nested mqs don't work in IE.

cssnext is just about fallbacks. Like es6 transpilers that produce code backward compatible.
It's always about fallbacks.

Did you think about the time where some features of cssnext will be deprecated for some people (depending on browsers support)?

Best example I have so far: rebeccapurple is already in a lot of browsers, so it's likely to be outdated really soon except if you want it for old browsers.

Autoprefixer already does some works which is not really just about prefixes (I'm looking at flexbox).
I see cssnext as an autoprefixer on steroid, so I think handling prefixes here totally make sense.

Time goes but some browsers are still here. I think cssnext is not just about the future, it's about using some css features (mainly syntax sugar) at a given moment (as you write your code).

I agree that import is totally a bonus feature & I think I make this pretty clear in the README. It's really convenient to have this feature when you don't have "smart" tools like webpack, component or duo.

[AntonTrollback]

👍 listed features

rem fallback might still be useful for opera mini

[iamvdo]

@MoOx:

1 - This is just my opinion, ok? ;)
2 - cssnext is a great "tool" and achieves its main objective: use advanced CSS features that close the gap between preprocessors and CSS.

If you need fallbacks (eg prefixes, rem, or anything else that will be useless not so long ago), you have to use more tools. And that's the purpose of Pleeease that already have almost all you've planned for the 1.0.0.

Adding more and more task to cssnext is creating another tool that do the same as Pleeease, based on the same technology (JavaScript), using the same CSS parser (PostCSS) and even more, using same modules (autoprefixer, pixrem, etc). Is this what you want ? Create the same tool, but made by yourself ? OK, but what do we do next ? Masturbate ?

Come on, open-source is better than this. Continue to work hard on cssnext, it will be fine. Contribute on Pleeease and integrate cssnext in a more elegant manner than today, it will be better.

[MoOx]

I think from what I can read for the very first line of the README of Pleeease, the goal are not the same.

It simplifies the use of preprocessors and helps keep stylesheets as small as possible for a better maintenability.

cssnext goal is really simple: use today the css syntax from the specs.

cssnext is just a transpiler that add a bunch of fallbacks, like esnext or 6to5.
So if some use cases require more fallbacks, let's do it with more fallbacks.

When I start to use a tool, I think most of the time I don't really pay attention about what is used under the hood.
When I use a switch for my LAN, I don't care what is used in it, I just want plug'n'play. And all models available on the market probably use a lot of similar modules.

So who cares about the technology that use the tool? Who tells you that you are not going to use a new engine tomorrow?

Did you also give a lesson to the guy who started postcss? I guess not.

Who taked a lot of time to convert lot's of rework plugins to postcss?
Who open sourced all his work as simple & standalone modules?
Who already fixed a lot of issues on those modules before a lot of people even notice anything?

Who is using those fresh modules?
Who released major versions of a tool without asking any watchers?

Pleeease don't come here to give me a lesson about how open source works.

[iamvdo]

the goal are not the same

Wrong. It's just about wording. We all know both tools are similar.

I think most of the time I don't really pay attention about what is used under the hood.

Wrong. First you've used Sass (which I wrote against a year back on my blog), then you've supported Myth (which I also wrote against) and then you've created cssnext. You know how all tools are built, and this is why you've switched. So, don't tell me you don't pay attention to that.

Who taked a lot of time to convert lot's of rework plugins to postcss?
Who open sourced all his work as simple & standalone modules?
Who already fixed a lot of issues on those modules before a lot of people even notice anything?
Who is using those fresh modules?
Who released major versions of a tool without asking any watchers?

You. And me. This is open-source man.

I'm starting to think that it's a problem with me... or maybe you just need glory ? That's too bad. I can also ask questions:

• Why you never ever mention Pleeease ? (afraid that people understand that another project exists ?)
• Why you never admit cssnext will be a clone, with different wording ?
• Who converted rework-vars to postcss-vars first ? (and then you created postcss-custom-properties, so I chose to deprecate my module)
• Who created an import module first ? (and then you converted rework-import to postcss-import, deprecate another time)
• Who also made the CSS to SVG filters conversion module, rewrote and added features to Pixrem, and many more ?
• Who added cssnext to Pleeease and mention you in the website because your work is great ?

I admit I don't understand your reasoning.

But it's OK, create a Pleeease's clone. The cssnext v1.0.0 will basically match Pleeease v0.4 (actually in v2.0.0). Looking forward to cssnext v2.0.0</troll>

[iamvdo]

The last sentence is a troll, right ? I'm sure you can make an awesome tool. I don't doubt about this.

[bloodyowl]

@iamvdo you try to get for yourself the merit for a vision you don't share and modules you didn't take the time to create. stop it right there mate, that's not what open-source is about, ego has nothing to do with it.

[iamvdo]

you try to get for yourself the merit for a vision you don't share and modules you didn't take the time to create

ha ha.

Forget about it, I won't give my opinion about cssnext anymore. I better understand cssnext fucking roadmap now.

[MoOx]

@iamvdo I didn't create cssnext to get all the credit, that's why I've create postcss & cssnext orgs and already given write access to a lot of people, because open source is a common effort. Btw if you want to be in, just ask.

You know how all tools are built, and this is why you've switched

FYI, that what I said "When I start to use a tool". Eventually, we always take a deeper look, that's obvious.

At the beginning of Pleeease, your project where relying on some untested code, and sorry but these days, I can't work with untested code. Random driven development isn't for me :(
Most of your "rework to postcss" work was in a single repo, not reusable :/

You think everyone should work for your project because you created it before other people?
You think similar tools can't coexist?
What about jslint, jshint, eslint? What about traceur, es6-transpiler, 6to5 etc.? There is so many example out there (browsers?)...

Notes

• you don't use cssnext in your tool, you are just consuming some similar modules.
• you added your "next" features just some days after cssnext was released (based on the modules I published) and now your are asking me to contribute to your tool? That' funny, I just understand I already contribute to your tool if we take in account all the code I wrote used by pleeease
• I am watching your repo for a long time because I think there is good in it, it seems you don't do the same. I don't understand why did you come here to give your opinion if you are not using or even interested in cssnext.

You should be cool & enjoy the benefits cssnext are bringing for your tool.

[MoOx]

PS: I've removed some totally useless comments. Please be gentle guys.

[lionelB]

• rem fallback (still used for some people - according to browsers options, this will probably be disabled by default) 👍
• :matches support 👍
• nested media queries 👍
• image-set() 👍
• filters 👍
• about opacity, to me, it's in the same scope as rem ihmo since some have to deal with ie8.

About the browsers features, would provide is a nice user api, and also a great occasion to create a dedicated module for using caniuse site in order to enable fallback on rule (if it's not already a module)

[iamvdo]

Thanks Maxime for being constructive, not like your friends Laurel & Hardy. Removing their comments is a great decision, but this comment looks provocative. I was just replying to an offense.

You think everyone should work for your project because you created it before other people?

You missed my purpose. I never ask you to work on Pleeease and merge cssnext into it. Both tools can cohabit. I just say that create an exact similar tool is useless. I though about adding NEXT features to Pleeease at the same time that you created cssnext (because people want it, including you). And I don't add cssnext as-is because it does more than it should (prefixes and import), but I include all modules.

When I said:

Contribute on Pleeease and integrate cssnext in a more elegant manner than today

I don't want to eclipse your tool. cssnext does his job and needs to exist. I was more thinking about removing pleeease.NEXT and use cssnext with it and so on.

Instead of creating two similar tools, I rather contribute and use your tool. This is not your way of seeing things.

Btw, that's just my point of view. I will continue to use cssnext modules in Pleeease, until cssnext will override Pleeease. And please, ask your mates to keep insults for themselves.

[bloodyowl]

@iamvdo on a more serious note, if we reacted like this, it's just that your tone was really not acceptable in the way I see it :

Is this what you want ? Create the same tool, but made by yourself ? OK, but what do we do next ? Masturbate ?

Continue to work hard on cssnext, it will be fine. Contribute on Pleeease and integrate cssnext in a more elegant manner than today, it will be better.

these two sentences, man, did you seriously write that?

[MoOx]

We will continue with opened issues.
Thanks everyone.