IRC log of css on 2008-06-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:03:25 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #css
16:03:25 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:03:40 [fantasai]
regrets from howcome, annevk, innovimax, dsinger, and bert
16:03:44 [fantasai]
Zakim, who is here?
16:03:44 [Zakim]
On the phone I see fantasai, Molly_Holzschlag, glazou, Ming, plinss, jason_cranfordtea, [Microsoft]
16:03:45 [Ming]
daniel: Agenda review
16:03:48 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Arron, jason_cranfordtea, Zakim, Ming, Molly, glazou, dbaron, trackbot, myakura, fantasai, plinss_, bjoern, jdaggett, plinss, anne, krijnh, Hixie, Bert,
16:03:51 [Zakim]
... hsivonen
16:03:54 [fantasai]
ScribeNick: Ming
16:04:01 [Ming]
Topic: Charter, by Peter
16:04:17 [Ming]
peter: module list updated last week; will send it out this week
16:04:29 [Ming]
jason: my note on hypertext link style?
16:04:45 [Ming]
fantasai: which note?
16:04:45 [Zakim]
16:05:08 [Ming]
jason: regarding pseudo class
16:05:24 [Ming]
fantasai: then should go into selector module
16:05:46 [Ming]
jason: make sense; though does affect link style
16:05:55 [Ming]
jason: ok, agree to cancel my note
16:06:31 [Ming]
jason: more about link pseudo class; not a huge thing, from a design point of view
16:06:53 [Ming]
daniel: please send the complete list of modules out today, peter.
16:06:55 [Ming]
peter: yes
16:07:16 [Ming]
fantasai: not talked about whether to do selector 4 module. does not have feedbacks, since f-2-f meeting
16:07:32 [Ming]
fantasai: should this be listed in the charter; think it should be in scope
16:07:45 [Ming]
daniel: selector was the first thing to work on CSS WG
16:08:29 [Ming]
daniel: make it an extension would be a better course.
16:08:48 [Ming]
fantasai: ok; I can't disagree with this; would like to hear the implementor's view.
16:09:02 [fantasai]
s/would like to hear/I haven't heard/
16:09:03 [Ming]
daniel: would like implementor focus on other modules.
16:09:30 [Ming]
Topic: background and borders issues
16:09:55 [Ming]
daniel: bert and I am working on these issues
16:10:19 [Ming]
16:10:47 [Ming]
fantasai: would seek implementors' view
16:11:07 [Ming]
daniel: is there a third way than accept or reject, i.e. working on this later
16:11:48 [Ming]
fantasai: don't want to keep working on the draft, would spend energy somewhere else
16:12:17 [Ming]
peter/molly: would have a place to keep the work so far, for next round. don't want losing the work
16:12:31 [Ming]
fantasai: has listed some work on the wiki
16:12:56 [Ming]
fantasai: is anyone wanting the multiple borders in module 3
16:13:03 [Ming]
david b.: yes
16:13:12 [Ming]
daniel: anyone else, Microsoft, Opera?
16:13:30 [Ming]
arron: can't say for sure; likelt won't need for a while
16:13:51 [Ming]
david b.: not sure what is to be implemented
16:13:57 [Ming]
fantasai: not sure either
16:14:19 [Ming]
daniel: so better to drop it for this round; need more work
16:14:25 [fantasai]
dbaron: Mozilla has a multiple borders feature, but I don't think it's what we want here
16:14:30 [Ming]
daniel: all agree; done
16:14:44 [fantasai]
RESOLVED: no multiple borders in level 3
16:14:45 [Ming]
fantasai: percentage border width, issue 26
16:15:05 [Ming]
fantasai: any pressing reason to add this?
16:15:20 [Ming]
daniel: is there a use case for this?
16:15:28 [Ming]
fantasai: don't know one
16:15:54 [Ming]
daniel: don't see border width specified this way, rather in pixel; jason?
16:16:22 [Ming]
jason: agree. can't think of a use case, percentage border width is to be used.
16:16:44 [dbaron]
I would note that one reason you don't see non-pixel borders is that some implementations (e.g., older version of Gecko) will often make them uneven, which isn't what authors want.
16:16:45 [Ming]
molly: the only place is scalable design; not someone is practicing these days.
16:17:28 [Ming]
david b: see my comments above.
16:17:43 [fantasai]
jason: I don't think it will make or break any designs
16:17:52 [fantasai]
RESOLVED: no percentage borders
16:18:04 [Ming]
daniel: so we can resolve it by not doing this for now
16:18:09 [fantasai]
16:19:14 [fantasai]
jason, molly: designers would be very interesting to designers
16:19:24 [Ming]
fantasai: next issue: shadows; looking at the pictures
16:19:34 [fantasai]
dbaron: would this feature give you 5% of what designers want from this, or 80% of what designers want?
16:20:03 [Ming]
david b: is this feature to give a substantial feature or just tiny feature
16:20:20 [Ming]
daniel/molly/jason: a substantial feature
16:20:34 [Ming]
jason: more if can do this like photoshop
16:21:06 [Ming]
jason: webfloor effect?
16:21:15 [Ming]
daniel: no, just the shadow effect
16:21:45 [Ming]
david b: make a distinction between box shadow effect vs text shadow effect
16:22:00 [Ming]
fantasai: yes.
16:22:10 [Ming]
molly: need to do both
16:22:51 [Ming]
david: q: whether we want to pull one feature at a time what SVG can do, for next 20 years?
16:23:25 [Ming]
daniel: do we want to do features depending on external engine, or focus on CSS style
16:23:52 [Ming]
daniel: suggest this question for SVG/CSS WG joint session
16:24:01 [Ming]
molly/david: agree
16:24:24 [Ming]
molly: if do shadow effect, can't do a half job, as this is a common feature.
16:24:27 [fantasai]
molly: if we're doing shadows, we should do inner shadows
16:24:30 [Ming]
molly: in design
16:24:59 [Ming]
daniel: any protocol on coordination with SVG features?
16:25:18 [Ming]
fantasai: doing it as an inner shadows than external shadows
16:25:36 [fantasai]
fantasai: I would probably just add an 'inset' keyword to the shadow
16:25:42 [Ming]
daniel: continue working on this box shadow, don't drop it
16:25:44 [fantasai]
RESOLVED: continue work on inner shadows
16:25:56 [Ming]
daniel: next, positioning from corners
16:26:15 [Ming]
fantasai: the current approach might be a bit awkward.
16:26:36 [Ming]
fantasai: an alternative approach would require a different syntax.
16:26:40 [fantasai]
background-postion: 10px 20px;
16:27:03 [Ming]
fantasai: designer would prefer to do it from bottom right.
16:27:04 [fantasai]
background-position: bottom 10px right 20px;
16:27:19 [Ming]
fantasai: my proposal is to use keyword and position
16:27:26 [Ming]
16:27:42 [Ming]
fantasai: from the edge of the element
16:28:08 [Ming]
daniel/fantasai: more like to hear what author want to say
16:28:55 [Ming]
jason: never really have a case to do it from left or right; could be because I can't do it in the past
16:29:18 [Ming]
fantasai: people really want to do from bottom right
16:29:36 [fantasai]
fantasai: question is whether to create a syntax for this, or to wait for calc()
16:29:43 [Ming]
jason: agree; what is the syntax to write it from right to left
16:29:48 [fantasai]
background-position: bottom 10px right 20px;
16:30:06 [fantasai]
background-position: start 10px center;
16:30:14 [Ming]
fantasai: I am posting some notes to show the syntax
16:30:50 [Ming]
jason: just looking at these syntax, it is hard to understand (by author); maybe easy for computer to understand
16:31:26 [Ming]
daniel: Q: do you mean 10 px from righ edge of the box ?
16:31:37 [glazou]
16:32:03 [Ming]
fantasaI: could be right edge from the right edge(?)
16:32:55 [Ming]
david b: calc(?) expression has the percentage in it.
16:33:52 [Ming]
david b: two path of calculation, one for image and one for the other
16:34:09 [Ming]
jason: creating the padding of what the background is?
16:34:42 [Ming]
jason: sometime, need to create both background content and background box
16:34:51 [Ming]
daniel: do we have consensus to work on this?
16:34:53 [fantasai]
16:35:16 [Ming]
fantasai: inclined to add this; maybe put in the next draft and ask for feedbacks
16:35:23 [Ming]
daniel: agree, and resolved.
16:36:06 [Ming]
fantasai: post my proposal and david b. has some comment. are we ok?
16:36:15 [Ming]
daniel: resolved.
16:36:26 [fantasai]
16:36:30 [glazou]
16:36:38 [Ming]
Topic: template layout
16:36:39 [fantasai]
Any issues that received no comment in that message will be marked as resolved
16:36:52 [Ming]
daniel: can current draft be considered as a working draft?
16:37:17 [Ming]
peter: don't see why not
16:37:31 [Ming]
peter: the current draft is a year old
16:37:53 [Ming]
daniel: this is the third working draft
16:38:09 [Ming]
fantasai: think this module need a lot of work, before LC
16:38:29 [Ming]
fantasai: though no problem publishing it as working draft for comments
16:38:32 [Ming]
daniel: resolved
16:38:51 [Ming]
Topic: moving css3-color to LC
16:39:03 [Ming]
daniel: several issues
16:39:10 [Ming]
16:39:34 [fantasai]
dbaron: one about z-index required adding a new paragraph
16:39:42 [fantasai]
dbaron: another I proposed no change
16:39:50 [fantasai]
dbaron: another I resolved by pulling in diffs from css2.1
16:40:11 [Ming]
daniel: no objection to release it to LC; others?
16:40:22 [Ming]
fantasai: no comments
16:40:36 [Ming]
arron: no objection
16:40:51 [Ming]
molly/jason: no objection
16:41:01 [Ming]
daniel: resolved: release to last call
16:41:23 [Ming]
david b: was in CR and had some comments
16:41:56 [Ming]
david: when should we respond to them? will people get confused?
16:42:49 [Ming]
daniel: color is something a lot of groups depending on, so good to respond
16:42:57 [dbaron]
the question was really about when we publish the disposition of comments
16:43:00 [Ming]
Topic: test suite and test review process
16:43:17 [fantasai]
Ming: In April I proposed a review process that me, elika and arron put together
16:43:19 [glazou]
dbaron: we can have an online document ready but formally not called "DoC"
16:43:23 [fantasai]
Ming: to use wiki pages for review comments
16:43:35 [fantasai]
Ming: One of the key steps in the process is the peer or approver -- the final review
16:43:46 [fantasai]
Ming: Recently Arron and I discussed how a person qualifies to become a peer
16:44:02 [fantasai]
Ming: The reviewing is the bulk of the work right now.. it's the bottleneck
16:44:13 [fantasai]
Ming: If we're looking at peers we have today, we don't have a lot of active peers
16:44:35 [fantasai]
Ming: Maybe David will have time to help more..
16:44:40 [fantasai]
Ming: but we lack peer resources
16:44:53 [fantasai]
Ming: So I proposed a process for someone with enough creditials to apply for peer status
16:45:21 [fantasai]
Ming: My proposal is based on Elika's policy
16:45:24 [fantasai]
16:46:07 [fantasai]
Ming: I took those one step further, and said that person has to review 50-100 testcases across modules and with sufficient complexity
16:46:13 [fantasai]
Ming: to demonstrate competency
16:46:39 [fantasai]
Ming: When a person applies for peer position, then person has to continue contributing
16:46:51 [fantasai]
Ming: e.g. review 30-50 testcases a month
16:47:40 [fantasai]
Daniel: Have you discussed this process with W3C management?
16:47:59 [fantasai]
dbaron: In open source projects, the rules are less formal.
16:48:12 [fantasai]
dbaron: and becoming a peer is more a recognition of the person's status rather than something you apply for
16:48:55 [fantasai]
Ming: Then maybe we need another status, not peer, but something like "Approver"
16:49:06 [fantasai]
Ming: Someone who demonstrates ability to make high quality comments on testcases
16:54:13 [fantasai]
... some discussion ...
16:54:31 [fantasai]
Peter summarizes: We like the idea of having a list of active reviewers. We want a call to the public for more people to join this list and help review tests
16:55:48 [fantasai]
We want members of the public to help review tests.
16:56:05 [fantasai]
We want to have a list of "final reviewers", and publish process for becoming a final reviewer
16:56:40 [fantasai]
Molly: we can publicize through www-style, our blog, Eric Meyer's group, personal blogs
17:00:24 [fantasai]
Elika: I've been waiting for licensing issues to issue a call for help with the test suite
17:00:27 [glazou]
fantasai: I can extend the wiki to host comments on the test suite
17:00:52 [fantasai]
Elika: There are several ways to help: reviewing testcases, reporting failures, fixing testcases in response to review comments, writing testcases
17:01:11 [fantasai]
Peter: We shouldn't hold back on that for issuing a call for reviewers
17:01:57 [fantasai]
Elika: Ming and I discussed using the wiki for reviews, should set that up first
17:02:10 [Zakim]
17:02:11 [Zakim]
17:02:11 [Ming]
daniel: meeting adjourned
17:02:12 [Zakim]
17:02:12 [Zakim]
17:02:13 [Zakim]
17:02:18 [Zakim]
17:02:22 [Zakim]
17:02:27 [Molly]
Molly has left #css
17:03:51 [Ming]
RRSAgent, make minutes
17:03:51 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Ming
17:04:09 [Ming]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:04:58 [Ming]
17:06:28 [Zakim]
17:06:30 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
17:06:31 [Zakim]
Attendees were fantasai, Molly_Holzschlag, glazou, Ming, plinss, jason_cranfordtea, [Microsoft], David_Baron
18:30:44 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #css
18:39:19 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
19:02:57 [Hixie]
HTML5 defines all that, i believe
19:03:37 [Hixie]
well, the first one
19:03:41 [Hixie]
the second is an xml problem
19:03:57 [Hixie]
the first one should render as two lines, 
 gets turned into a single U+000A character upon parsing
19:29:31 [anne]
 is followed by a newline though
19:32:00 [Hixie]
ah, i forgot exactly what happens with that
19:32:02 [Hixie]
it's defined though
19:32:06 [Hixie]
either way :-)
19:41:16 [anne]
I think the current spec says IE and Opera are wrong, it doesn't care much about entities being followed by some character (though this may be a spec problem as it affects those pesty UTF-16 code units of which I forgot the name)
19:42:13 [bjoern]
They are called surrogate code points
19:42:52 [bjoern]
XML processors read the 
 like any other character reference, so you get CR LF.
19:42:53 [anne]
19:43:16 [anne]
in HTML5 it becomes LF I think, there's no way to get CR in the source
19:43:41 [Hixie]
if you end up with a CR in the DOM, then it becomes a CSS issue
19:46:07 [anne]
0x0D is mapped to U+000A in HTML5
19:46:16 [anne]
see the first table in
19:46:41 [anne]
there are outstanding comments on that part of the spec i think
19:53:31 [anne]
were any decisions made on publishing css-flexbox?
19:54:52 [anne]
seems not