00:00:27 ... 00:00:38 Molly: How can I explain to developers specificity if it isn't clear to me in the spec? 00:00:47 Molly: I'd like to submit radical idea for this group 00:00:59 Molly: There are some people here who have writing and explaining skills 00:01:11 Molly: I see there's a problem in splitting the information 00:01:32 Molly: But there could be someone who's an editor who checks that the language comes out in a way that makes sense 00:01:45 Molly: And clarifies the sections of the spec that make sense to implementors but not to designers and developers 00:01:56 Jason: Consistency across specifications is another issue 00:02:25 Jason: some are very dense, others are entertaining but fluff 00:02:45 Molly: I admire Richard for his work on i18n site 00:02:57 Molly: The specs don't necessarily change, but the detailed articles change 00:03:03 Molly: There's a process for improving them 00:03:14 ack tantek 00:03:15 Tantek: I think that this kind of separation is a really bad idea for a number of reasons 00:03:29 Tantek: Every spec I see at W3C that has primer vs spec is so complicated 00:03:43 Tantek: It sends the wrong message: this is so complicated that they couldn't write it all in one spec 00:03:55 Tantek: integrating information across two different URLs is so difficult 00:04:08 Tantek: Even if the section numbering is the same, the cognitive load is so much more heavy 00:04:19 Tantek: Any time you have 2 pieces of related text and you separate them 00:04:29 q Chris 00:04:30 Tantek: The more you separate them, the greater chance that they become inconsistent 00:04:40 Tantek: And you fall into the problem where they contradict each other. 00:04:53 Tantek: If the goal is to have more consistent, non conflicting specs 00:05:02 Tantek: then we don't want to split the specs 00:05:38 Molly: I'm not saying we split the specs, but having someone else going through and helping to clarify and explain the confusing and complicated parts 00:05:51 Tantek: marking things informative/normative -- great. 00:06:14 Tantek: That makes it clear. Separating it makes it unclear. 00:06:33 Tantek: The parts of CSS2 that are least interoperable are the ones where key pieces are separated. 00:06:56 q+ 00:07:13 Molly: Consistent style, poor language and description, these are problems in our spec that we should fix 00:07:52 Tantek: CSS1 is much more coherent. In CSS2, things are split up into different chapters that cross-reference each other. 00:09:00 Steve: 3 points 00:09:27 Steve: I disagree with Tantek on the split primer and spec issue because at least what I've found is that you can read the primer as a user and stop there until you get much more sophisticated 00:09:44 Steve: It's much easier to get an overview in the primer 00:09:54 Steve: I really think that whole thing is a red herring 00:10:03 anne: I would 00:10:06 STeve: Do we need additional information beyond the normative part of the spec to get it across. 00:10:10 ? 00:10:23 (personally, I think that if someone would like to write a primer, he should just go for it) 00:10:27 Steve: We're discussing how to present this info rather than whether we need it 00:10:28 (or she) 00:10:45 Steve: A wiki mechanism would be able to provide background material 00:11:02 Steve: wouldn't require publication procedures, and it can be an ongoing process of adding to it and editing it 00:11:11 Steve: a place to point to people for understanding the spec 00:11:17 q+ 00:11:21 q+ 00:11:27 this is (1) code (2) comments (3) documentation. (1) and (2) should stay together. (3) is a bonus 00:12:42 q+ 00:12:45 Molly: As the author of over 35 books and many many articles, 00:13:11 Molly: The books and articles have done very little because what happens is, 00:13:19 Molly: The publishing industry is not working the way we do. 00:13:42 Molly: If I have a book from 7 years ago that advocates techniques from 7 years ago and its still selling, the publishers won't take them down 00:13:47 Molly: no matter how much we beg that they do 00:14:10 Molly: We have a continual rality that the books and resources out there are going to go stale while .. moves forward 00:14:22 Molly: THere's a huge gap between what we're doing, web standards doing, what companies are doing etc 00:14:32 Molly: When it comes to specifications themselves as they are written and understood. 00:14:53 Molly: When I sit down as an educator and I get to a passage that I can't understand, then I'm disempowered and I'm not going to reach the people who need to be reached. 00:15:22 Molly: books are not reliable venues 00:15:39 Molly: If you ask industry what is the authoritative group on web tech, they say W3C. 00:15:51 Molly: We have some ethical duty that what we're putting out in the spec makes sens to people on some level. 00:16:24 wonders how opera got a 100/100 on acid3 when we're still finding bugs in the test. ;) 00:16:58 hyatt_, no idea 00:17:02 what bug? 00:17:03 Jason: As the author of only 11 books.. 00:17:11 Jason: I'd disagree with Molly to a certain extent. 00:17:20 Jason: I think that the books have the greatest influence on the design community. 00:17:31 Jason: Any office I go to, they have all these web design books on their desk 00:17:42 Jason: They keep them there and they reference thme and they have websites they go to 00:17:50 ack SteveZ 00:17:50 Jason: None of them know the w3c or go to w3c 00:17:54 ack molly 00:17:58 Molly and Jason distinguish developers and designers 00:18:09 Jason: If you ask designers who decides how the web works, they'll say Microsoft 00:18:21 Jason: They deal more with pracitaclities of what's going to get my design on the web. 00:18:43 Jason: I do see a trend with more designers wanting to learn more about how to get from their prettypictures to getting it to work online. 00:18:56 Jason: I totally udnerstand where you're coming from, it would be nice if we could be a repository for this knowledge 00:19:08 Jason: BUt they're very different audiences that have very different needs. 00:19:38 q+ 00:19:41 Chris: It would be highly useful to have a few more examples and explanatory text, these were alternatives considered and rejected because 00:19:49 Molly: This discussion is why we're here. 00:21:00 Fantasai: I agree w/ Tantek that splitting specs, I see more examples and explanatory is what makes our specs more readable than XML and something we should continue to do - not pulling them out into another document 00:21:10 ack fantasai 00:21:13 acl jason 00:21:19 ack jason 00:21:52 Fantasai: Molly's got a point, there are places where this can be made more understandable to somebody who is not as technical as we are, but still happens 00:22:10 Fantasai: Making the specs we have now more clear is a good idea, but splitting things up, no. 00:23:01 ack glazou 00:25:13 Fantasai: We shouldn't be trying to make it easy for the designers to read, but remove the barriers, make it possible if they put the effort to try hard 00:25:21 q+ 00:25:41 Peter: Putting more examples of why we put something in the spec would also make implementors more excited about implementing it 00:25:46 tantek, https://twitter.com/dbaron != dbaron I think 00:25:57 anne, I already told him 00:25:58 anne, yes, corrected. thanks. 00:26:08 Steve: So.. we shouldn't think of creating a separate document for the implementor audience 00:26:17 Steve: THat we probably don't need a separate document for the developer audience 00:26:38 Steve: And there's a possibility of doing separate things for designer audience, but it's also worthwhile in the development of our specs 00:26:53 Steve: to make them more readable by adding more example and non-normative sections that explain intent 00:27:37 Steve: My concern is that in the interest of getting the spec out... 00:27:51 Steve: There are pieces of the spec that are so hard to write in any form that they're bottlenecks in the schedule 00:28:04 Steve: So while I support the goals, I wonder whether we're writing the best conclusion 00:28:31 [Fantasai from previous: one of the reasons CSS specs are more understandable than XML is because they have explanatory text and examples] 00:28:44 Do we need group policies on any of this, or can we leave it up to editors? 00:29:53 Topic: At-risk Features 00:30:43 Daniel: I just want to encourage us to use this more often as needed. 00:30:54 Topic: Discussion Level 00:31:03 Daniel: I would like us to keep the discussions at the technical leve. 00:31:17 Daniel: We are not marketers, lawyers, etc. 00:31:24 Daniel: We all want to push CSS forward. Let's do it. 00:31:28 Topic: New Members 00:31:42 Daniel: Last time we saw a representative from Dreamweaver was 8-9 years ago 00:31:53 Daniel: They are still important in CSS editing 00:32:10 Daniel: Microsoft has a nice CSS editor, but ExpressionWeb has not participated at all 00:32:25 Daniel: It would be nice for these people to come and express the POV of editors 00:32:37 Daniel: We want to increase critical mass. 00:32:46 Daniel: Another point, we all know CSS is very powerful 00:32:53 Daniel: especially the cascade, constraints, etc. 00:33:11 Daniel: But CSS is very bad at allowing editors to provide one-click effects 00:33:23 Daniel: Having the POV of WYSYWG editors would ehlp 00:33:27 s/ehlp/help/ 00:33:43 Daniel: Usually they detect bugs in rednering engines because they are more in touch with authors. 00:34:11 Alex: So we should bring more people? 00:34:22 Daniel: invite them to come in from time to time if they have things to bring to the table 00:34:41 Alex: We have bosses who are members of working groups but never participate 00:34:49 Daniel: Good Standing status is individual 00:34:56 Daniel: not company-wide 00:35:17 Daniel: we have members who have never shown up to anything. 00:35:22 Daniel: Peter and I are willing to review that 00:35:36 Daniel: I understand that these people won't be members of wg all the time 00:36:01 Alex: Some of these people might show up from time to time, but they won't be here 00:36:09 Peter: That's ok, we still want their feedback 00:37:34 For the purposes of Good Standing, the regular representative and the substitute are considered the same participant. 00:37:45 See process spec 00:37:52 http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#group-participation 00:38:30 Peter: Quick call for any agenda items for next two days 00:38:42 Daniel: One last one... 00:38:47 plinss, css3-color 00:38:57 Daniel: We have too many documents that reached last call without a test suite 00:39:19 Daniel: Would like to see documents, even a template for links to the coverage report and test suite so we can fill that gap as soon as possible 00:39:48 Peter: Provide links to test suites - once we have a harness, we should post links to where the test should be 00:39:54 Anne: No, no, please no 00:40:55 Yes, please, yes 00:41:10 Kudos to Davis for adding tests while editing CSS3 Color 00:41:54 Thanks very much to David Baron for both updating CSS3 Color and adding tests. 00:42:24 discussion: management of specs and tests 00:43:02 Peter: Bring the two together a little bit so they make sense 00:43:26 It was later clarified that single link to the test suite was intended. I have no problem with that. 00:43:50 ok, good. glad we cleared that up 00:44:08 Steve: The role of last call was supposedly a statement that there are no outstanding issues, and it's putting it to the community - the gap between last call and CR should be driving a lot test creation because it's now in theory stable enough to do that investment 00:44:31 Steve: And also, the issue processing that David describe works there as well 00:44:34 The CR Exit Criteria have a sentence that refers to the test suite by name,that could be a link, that is almost zero work. 00:44:44 http://disruptive-innovations.com/zoo/css3tests/selectorTest.html#target 00:44:44 Peter: Shouldn't have to wait for last call for that however 00:45:19 Agenda Items: 00:45:38 Bert: First item mentions topics that haven't found a place yet 00:45:55 Fantasai: We need a significant time to discuss syntax 00:46:04 David: Do those need discussion or proposals 00:46:13 Fantasai: Discussions, because we have alternate proposals 00:47:37 Alex: Vertical tables 00:48:14 Peter: I think we're done for the day! 00:48:22 Peter, thank you, dinner at 7 00:49:54 rrsagent, make minutes 00:49:54 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-css-minutes.html chris 00:51:54 bye guys, thanks for the transcript 00:52:03 much apreciated 00:52:27 bye dsinger_ 00:59:33 hyatt has joined #css 01:04:38 hyatt has joined #css 01:16:46 anne has joined #css 04:12:15 tantek has joined #css 05:03:03 tantek_ has joined #css 05:34:30 Arron has joined #CSS 05:35:14 dbaron has joined #css 05:39:25 tantek has joined #css 05:46:26 alexmog has joined #css 07:11:58 mjs has joined #css 07:24:26 mjs_ has joined #css 07:44:16 alexmog has joined #css 07:54:53 bjoern has joined #css 16:17:56 RRSAgent has joined #css 16:17:56 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-css-irc 16:18:01 MoZ has joined #css 16:18:04 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:18:08 Zakim has joined #css 16:18:10 Meeting: CSS Working Group Meeting, San Diego, CA 16:18:29 Chair: Daniel Glazman, Peter Linss 16:18:37 ScribeNick: jason_cranfordtea 16:18:47 present 16:19:11 Elika: asks if we are ready to begin posting public minutes? 16:19:19 General consensus is yes 16:19:23 Result is yes 16:19:32 RESOLVED: Minutes will be public starting from now 16:20:06 Topic: Next F2F 16:20:47 Alex: proposes sites for next Ftf 16:21:10 Cabridge, UK 16:21:15 Moscow, Russia 16:21:25 Redmond, WA, US 16:21:30 Discussion by group 16:22:09 RESOLVED: Cambridge, UK is first choice 16:22:28 Alex discusses dates 16:22:32 24th of July 16:22:36 or anytime in August 16:22:51 group discussion 16:22:55 I prefer august 16:23:06 Steve available only 3rd week of august 16:25:26 August 20 -22nd (Wednesday-Friday) 16:25:45 RESOLVED: August 20 -22nd (Wednesday-Friday) Tentative 16:26:56 Topic: Plenary Meeting for Fal 16:27:53 Proposed: October 20th-25th 16:28:06 Group discussion 16:29:17 Preference for Monday Tuesday 16:29:22 glazou has joined #css 16:29:30 SWteve: Can we meet Sunday? 16:30:12 Peter: Are there other groups we want at the planary? 16:30:56 SVG and SMIL 16:31:54 For Oct ftf: SZ has conflict with AB (Th/Fr), ask for extra day on Sun? joint with SVG (filters)? joint with UWA (layout)? 16:32:13 Discussion about needed Apple participation to discuss their proposals 16:33:44 Steve will talk to contacts at Apple 16:34:05 Discussion about talking to Internationalization Group 16:34:44 Avoid overlap with Internationalization Group 16:35:28 Peter will but in reuest for previous Sunday meeting 16:35:40 TOPIC: Next year's conferences 16:36:14 Bert: talks about meeting next summer as cross between technical plenary and Web conference 16:37:07 Steve: ALA wants to do a co-event with W3C in Balonia (sp?) Italy for Web designers 16:37:39 Steve: event target Europe rather than US designers 16:38:03 "An Event Apart" 16:38:26 http://aneventapart.com/ 16:39:26 This even would be similar but for Europe 16:40:21 s/Balonia/Bologna/ 16:40:28 Bert: In principal, are we interested in participating? 16:41:16 Bert: We can have an F2F at the same place the week before/after 16:41:39 Molly: Opposed to being too closly aligned with any specific conference 16:42:20 Steve: wants to take discussion off-line for W3C input. 16:44:05 Jason: Agrees that there should not be any perception that we are aligned with any other conference 16:44:39 Jason: But does see benefit in showing that we are involved in the wider Web community 16:46:09 Bert and I don't live far away, we can make it for the conf if necessary 16:46:47 now, I don't feel confortable with aligning a CSS WG ftf meeting with a conf, we don't have to give a marketing stamp to a privately held conf IMHO 16:47:19 TOPIC: Mobile Profile ready to move to CR? 16:47:35 Bert: Can we publish? 16:47:44 Elika: No problem 16:48:35 Group discussion about current status 16:48:43 Bert: there is a test suite 16:49:12 Tantek: concern over bgs 16:49:40 Steve: Q for Tantek: are they CSS bugs or just bugs? 16:49:59 Tantek: Simple dumb bugs in test, NOT in CSS 16:50:59 Elika: People running test will complain, so we can catch that way 16:51:07 Tantek: opposite happening 16:51:38 Tantek: if marquee properies are not ready, not ready for CR 16:53:03 Danial: Do we have an agreement on the Mobile CSS profile? 16:53:20 Tantek: I do not see stuff that in the test suite but not in the profile 16:53:21 The MWTS WG's harness for the CSS Mobile Profile: http://www.w3.org/2007/03/mth/harness?test=start&ts=cssmp 16:53:48 Bert: There is nothing in the profile that we do not have agreement 16:53:59 Bert: but marquee is in WD 16:54:19 Elika: Some items need more review 16:54:34 Elika: rewriting of vocab 16:55:00 Elika: spllit marquee and overflow to move Mobile profile forward 16:55:16 Elika: Box model needs more review 16:56:41 Elika: Suggestion create CSS overflow Level 3 16:58:03 Discussion about specifics of splitting out overflow 16:58:36 Elika: we need results 16:58:50 Q: Can we move Mobile forward to CR? 16:59:07 Tantek: Wants list of at risk to move forward to CR 17:00:46 RESOLVED: Mobile profile can move to CR as long as marquee and overflow are tagged as at-risk 17:01:24 Steve: They are at risk because their current document status of overflow and marquee would not allow the CR doc to go to PR 17:01:54 ACTION to Bert to inform Svante of this decision 17:02:03 ACTION ITEM: Inform Svante to make decided upon edits 17:02:38 ACTION: Bert Inform Svante to make decided upon edits 17:02:38 Created ACTION-13 - Inform Svante to make decided upon edits [on Bert Bos - due 2008-04-03]. 17:03:10 SteveZ has joined #css 17:03:31 ACTION: Jason delete first action 17:03:32 Created ACTION-14 - Delete first action [on Jason Cranford Teague - due 2008-04-03]. 17:04:35 Topic: Media queries 17:04:45 TOPIC: Are Media quarries ready to move to CR 17:05:47 Anne: discusses current status and tests 17:06:11 Anne: test need to be updated because of incomplete parsing rules 17:06:20 Davis: This is the second CR? 17:06:50 Anne: first in 2002. This is 3rd CR with further clarifications 17:07:42 Discussion of font size and root element 17:07:56 Decide to use default font 17:08:37 em and ex units in media queries need to be relative to initial values of font properties (not values on root element, since style sheets can change those) 17:09:27 ACTION: Anne update media quarries - syntax, grammar, changes to parsing rules of HTML 4, grid feature 17:09:27 Created ACTION-15 - Update media quarries - syntax, grammar, changes to parsing rules of HTML 4, grid feature [on Anne van Kesteren - due 2008-04-03]. 17:09:41 (and 'em' 'ex' definition) 17:10:03 scribenick: anne 17:10:33 Topic: CSS Website Update 17:13:40 Jason: Bert, Elika and I discussed updating the site some time ago. More organized, user friendly for different audiences. 17:14:00 ... Make it easy to find what you're looking for. 17:14:09 Peter: PHP can be used and MySQL. 17:14:33 Jason: Structured the page around primary tasks. 17:14:49 ... Specifications will be the primary focus. 17:15:10 ... CSS 2, errata, CSS 3, current work, and validation. 17:15:16 ... Profiles are also linked. 17:15:38 ... May want to change the profile links. 17:16:16 ... Also have links for contributing, tests, etc. 17:16:32 ... A search box, next to the navigation. 17:17:00 ... Also a list of languages that the site has been translated into. 17:17:10 ... (Initially hidden if we don't get the translations.) 17:17:31 ... "What is CSS?" block to give people a quick introduction. 17:17:54 Daniel: Was it not on the lefthand side of the screen? 17:18:02 Elike: it is the first in the source 17:18:12 Jason: it will be given more visual prominence 17:18:44 Jason: for a smaller screen the "What is CSS?" block will be on top 17:18:53 Jason: it will be using media queries 17:19:30 Elika: it will be using some cutting-edge features 17:20:28 Daniel: since only Opera and Safari do media queries, maybe it's not good enough to base on that 17:20:55 Jason: the non-mediaquery browsers will get the "What is CSS?" block on top 17:21:03 ... which seems acceptable. 17:21:51 ... Below the "What is CSS?" block we have a "What's new?" and "The world of CSS" 17:22:20 ... News stories, about us, etc. "The world of CSS" contains pointers to books, articles, etc. outside the W3C/CSS WG 17:22:32 ... Might want to break it down further. 17:22:44 Molly: so this is clearly identified as "elsewhere" 17:22:46 Jason: yes 17:23:17 Jason: we don't have a CMS in place. Though now PHP / MySQL seems possible maybe there are options. 17:23:50 Jason: could use WordPress 17:24:21 Elike: I'd like to move the blog to WordPress 17:24:28 Bert: what's wrong with Emacs? 17:24:33 [laughter] 17:24:40 Ming: Vi! 17:24:49 [more laughter] 17:25:07 Peter: I'd like a real CMS. 17:25:22 Jason: Yeah, that's possible. We can use WordPress for all of that. 17:25:51 Tantek: WordPress does have more IT-requirements unfortunately. 17:26:03 as anything with a database backend does 17:26:06 Elika: We can wait a little bit with WordPress. 17:26:26 Elika: should be ok to switch later 17:27:41 Jason: we may want to add an image. Definitely need contact informatoin. 17:27:49 s/informatoin/information/ 17:28:15 Jason: [goes through secondary pages] 17:28:41 Jason: charter, about, contact, etc. 17:29:18 Jason: "mood": flowing, transparent, layered, professional, informed (in a spiral) 17:30:28 Steve: maybe add stylish 17:31:33 Jason: new CSS logo idea 17:32:19 Jason: uses "Futura" 17:32:48 Jason: also used on the first moonlanding 17:34:19 Jason: uses transparancy so it can be used on all kinds of colored backgrounds 17:36:23 [some discussion on logo details; scribe hopes it's not too relevant for future generations] 17:46:15 [new angle: use the logo or do a contest for designers] 17:46:32 [part of the WG seems slightly bored] 17:49:03 RESOLVED: we're doing a contest for the CSS logo 17:49:26 RESOLVED: use logo with no missing squares as placeholder 17:49:50 so we don't have to hold up the web site redesign waiting for the log 17:49:51 o 17:50:14 Topic: CSS Website colors 17:50:23 [muted or vibrent] 17:50:30 Steve: I don't like the green 17:50:43 [some votes for muted] 17:51:10 Topic: CSS Website Fonts 17:51:13 s/colors/Colors/ 17:51:26 Jason: no image replacements, as pure CSS as a possibly can 17:52:12 VI dammit 17:53:38 Daniel: what about fonts on Linux? 17:53:42 Molly: depends on the build 17:53:45 Jason: I'll look into that 17:54:27 ... Georgia have a slightly older feel. Might replace Futura with Georgia 17:55:52 ... I think it comes down to font size, paragraph width 17:56:05 ... We'll be using lots of max- and min-width[s] 17:56:35 Bert: can Gill Sants be mixed with Futura 17:56:39 Jason: yes 17:56:52 Jason: for the paragraph font I can use Gill Sants 17:57:16 Bert: on the website we mostly use sans-serif 17:59:07 Steve: Future and Trebuchet have different lengths 17:59:20 Jason: I think for Future Medium and Trebuchet MS Bold this is ok 18:01:38 Topic: site design 18:03:12 [presents vibrant / muted] 18:03:23 jason_cranfordtea has joined #css 18:06:34 jason_cranfordtea has joined #css 18:07:08 Jason: I'll provide weekly feedback 18:11:03 Peter: check accessibility guidelines 18:12:18 Daniel: one of the key entry points of the W3C is the validator 18:12:32 Daniel: having information from the CSS group on the validator page would be good 18:13:31 Jason: feel free to e-mail feedback 18:14:04 jason_cranfordtea has joined #css 18:32:25 Zakim has left #css 18:32:52 jason_cranfordtea has joined #css 18:33:37 Zakim has joined #css 18:34:00 http://www.w3.org/Style/Group/2008/SanDiego 18:34:05 http://www.w3.org/Style/Group/2008/SanDiego.html#thursday 18:35:18 scribe: molly 18:35:27 Topic: Box Module 18:36:52 Bert: I took the text from 2.1. This is very complicated stuff, I'd like people to look it over and see if it works. Request anyone who understands height/width calculations to specifically look at the text 18:37:02 http://www.w3.org/Style/Group/css3-src/css3-box/ 18:38:02 Bert: So marquee split off / overflow 18:38:20 Fantasai: properties stable 18:39:03 Anne: There are at least four user agents that have implemented overflow-x overflow-y 18:41:33 Bert: we need to be sure that overflow x/y are going to stay 18:41:40 Anne: Web sites depend on them, they stay 18:41:48 Bert: Okay, we'll put them in and find a way to make it work 18:44:11 Alex: we treat x and y as width and height and we treat x as horizontal 18:45:01 Alex: Top Left Width Height are physical 18:45:09 Fantasai: We could introduce the stop and end properties 18:45:49 start and end properties for margin/border/padding/etc 18:48:18 Bert: Percentage on height property - auto if no defined height? 18:51:12 Elika: Must be undefined because of table interactions 18:53:15 David: For min/max height the same undefined way 18:53:32 David and then when we go define it for height, min/max will pick up the definitions 18:54:36 Bert: Intrinsic sizing 18:54:49 Bert: there were some open sections - David? 18:55:04 Bert: Section 10 18:55:43 Bert: I think I've made a mistake somewhere, I'll check it out 18:55:50 David: I'll need to look over this 18:56:02 Bert: Are you going to give me more text about float and clear? 18:56:05