16:03:25 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #css
16:03:25 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/04-css-irc
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> +David_Baron
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> s/daniel/fantasai/
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> http://bradclicks.com/cssplay/Shadows.html
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> s/position/distance
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> s/daniel/peter
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> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Jan/0365.html
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> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008May/0148.html
16:36:30 <glazou> http://www.w3.org/Style/Group/css3-src/css3-layout/Overview.html
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> s/daniel/david/
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> http://csswg.inkedblade.net/test/css2.1/review
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> -jason_cranfordtea
17:02:11 <Zakim> -David_Baron
17:02:11 <Ming> daniel: meeting adjourned
17:02:12 <Zakim> -plinss
17:02:12 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
17:02:13 <Zakim> -fantasai
17:02:18 <Zakim> -Molly_Holzschlag
17:02:22 <Zakim> -glazou
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 http://www.w3.org/2008/06/04-css-minutes.html Ming
17:04:09 <Ming> RRSAgent, make logs public
17:04:58 <Ming> quit
17:06:28 <Zakim> -Ming
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, &#xD; gets turned into a single U+000A character upon parsing
19:29:31 <anne> the &#xD; 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 &#x0d; like any other character reference, so you get CR LF.
19:42:53 <anne> thanks
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 http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/tokenisation.html#tokenising
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