04 Jun 2008

See also: IRC log






<fantasai> regrets from howcome, annevk, innovimax, dsinger, and bert

daniel: Agenda review

<fantasai> ScribeNick: Ming

Charter, by Peter

peter: module list updated last week; will send it out this week

jason: my note on hypertext link style?

fantasai: which note?

jason: regarding pseudo class

fantasai: then should go into selector module

jason: make sense; though does affect link style
... ok, agree to cancel my note
... more about link pseudo class; not a huge thing, from a design point of view

daniel: please send the complete list of modules out today, peter.

peter: yes

fantasai: not talked about whether to do selector 4 module. does not have feedbacks, since f-2-f meeting
... should this be listed in the charter; think it should be in scope

daniel: selector was the first thing to work on CSS WG
... make it an extension would be a better course.

fantasai: ok; I can't disagree with this; I haven't heard the implementor's view.

daniel: would like implementor focus on other modules.

background and borders issues

fantasai: bert and I am working on these issues
... would seek implementors' view

daniel: is there a third way than accept or reject, i.e. working on this later

fantasai: don't want to keep working on the draft, would spend energy somewhere else

peter/molly: would have a place to keep the work so far, for next round. don't want losing the work

fantasai: has listed some work on the wiki
... is anyone wanting the multiple borders in module 3

david b.: yes

daniel: anyone else, Microsoft, Opera?

arron: can't say for sure; likelt won't need for a while

david b.: not sure what is to be implemented

fantasai: not sure either

daniel: so better to drop it for this round; need more work

<fantasai> dbaron: Mozilla has a multiple borders feature, but I don't think it's what we want here

daniel: all agree; done

<fantasai> RESOLVED: no multiple borders in level 3

fantasai: percentage border width, issue 26
... any pressing reason to add this?

daniel: is there a use case for this?

fantasai: don't know one

daniel: don't see border width specified this way, rather in pixel; jason?

jason: agree. can't think of a use case, percentage border width is to be used.

<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.

molly: the only place is scalable design; not someone is practicing these days.

david b: see my comments above.

<fantasai> jason: I don't think it will make or break any designs

<fantasai> RESOLVED: no percentage borders

daniel: so we can resolve it by not doing this for now

<fantasai> http://bradclicks.com/cssplay/Shadows.html

<fantasai> jason, molly: designers would be very interesting to designers

fantasai: next issue: shadows; looking at the pictures

<fantasai> dbaron: would this feature give you 5% of what designers want from this, or 80% of what designers want?

david b: is this feature to give a substantial feature or just tiny feature

daniel/molly/jason: a substantial feature

jason: more if can do this like photoshop
... webfloor effect?

daniel: no, just the shadow effect

david b: make a distinction between box shadow effect vs text shadow effect

fantasai: yes.

molly: need to do both

david: q: whether we want to pull one feature at a time what SVG can do, for next 20 years?

daniel: do we want to do features depending on external engine, or focus on CSS style
... suggest this question for SVG/CSS WG joint session

molly/david: agree

molly: if do shadow effect, can't do a half job, as this is a common feature.

<fantasai> molly: if we're doing shadows, we should do inner shadows

molly: in design

daniel: any protocol on coordination with SVG features?

fantasai: doing it as an inner shadows than external shadows

<fantasai> fantasai: I would probably just add an 'inset' keyword to the shadow

daniel: continue working on this box shadow, don't drop it

<fantasai> RESOLVED: continue work on inner shadows

daniel: next, positioning from corners

fantasai: the current approach might be a bit awkward.
... an alternative approach would require a different syntax.

<fantasai> background-postion: 10px 20px;

fantasai: designer would prefer to do it from bottom right.

<fantasai> background-position: bottom 10px right 20px;

fantasai: my proposal is to use keyword and distance
... from the edge of the element

daniel/fantasai: more like to hear what author want to say

jason: never really have a case to do it from left or right; could be because I can't do it in the past

fantasai: people really want to do from bottom right

<fantasai> fantasai: question is whether to create a syntax for this, or to wait for calc()

jason: agree; what is the syntax to write it from right to left

<fantasai> background-position: bottom 10px right 20px;

<fantasai> background-position: start 10px center;

fantasai: I am posting some notes to show the syntax

jason: just looking at these syntax, it is hard to understand (by author); maybe easy for computer to understand

peter: Q: do you mean 10 px from righ edge of the box ?

fantasaI: could be right edge from the right edge(?)

david b: calc(?) expression has the percentage in it.

david b: two path of calculation, one for image and one for the other

jason: creating the padding of what the background is?
... sometime, need to create both background content and background box

daniel: do we have consensus to work on this?

<fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Jan/0365.html

fantasai: inclined to add this; maybe put in the next draft and ask for feedbacks

daniel: agree, and resolved.

fantasai: post my proposal and david b. has some comment. are we ok?

daniel: resolved.

<fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008May/0148.html

<glazou> http://www.w3.org/Style/Group/css3-src/css3-layout/Overview.html

template layout

<fantasai> Any issues that received no comment in that message will be marked as resolved

daniel: can current draft be considered as a working draft?

peter: don't see why not
... the current draft is a year old

daniel: this is the third working draft

fantasai: think this module need a lot of work, before LC
... though no problem publishing it as working draft for comments

daniel: resolved

moving css3-color to LC

david: several issues

<fantasai> dbaron: one about z-index required adding a new paragraph

<fantasai> dbaron: another I proposed no change

<fantasai> dbaron: another I resolved by pulling in diffs from css2.1

daniel: no objection to release it to LC; others?

fantasai: no comments

arron: no objection

molly/jason: no objection

daniel: resolved: release to last call

david b: was in CR and had some comments

david: when should we respond to them? will people get confused?

daniel: color is something a lot of groups depending on, so good to respond

<dbaron> the question was really about when we publish the disposition of comments

test suite and test review process

<fantasai> Ming: In April I proposed a review process that me, elika and arron put together

<glazou> dbaron: we can have an online document ready but formally not called "DoC"

<fantasai> Ming: to use wiki pages for review comments

<fantasai> Ming: One of the key steps in the process is the peer or approver -- the final review

<fantasai> Ming: Recently Arron and I discussed how a person qualifies to become a peer

<fantasai> Ming: The reviewing is the bulk of the work right now.. it's the bottleneck

<fantasai> Ming: If we're looking at peers we have today, we don't have a lot of active peers

<fantasai> Ming: Maybe David will have time to help more..

<fantasai> Ming: but we lack peer resources

<fantasai> Ming: So I proposed a process for someone with enough creditials to apply for peer status

<fantasai> Ming: My proposal is based on Elika's policy

<fantasai> http://csswg.inkedblade.net/test/css2.1/review

<fantasai> Ming: I took those one step further, and said that person has to review 50-100 testcases across modules and with sufficient complexity

<fantasai> Ming: to demonstrate competency

<fantasai> Ming: When a person applies for peer position, then person has to continue contributing

<fantasai> Ming: e.g. review 30-50 testcases a month

<fantasai> Daniel: Have you discussed this process with W3C management?

<fantasai> dbaron: In open source projects, the rules are less formal.

<fantasai> dbaron: and becoming a peer is more a recognition of the person's status rather than something you apply for

<fantasai> Ming: Then maybe we need another status, not peer, but something like "Approver"

<fantasai> Ming: Someone who demonstrates ability to make high quality comments on testcases

<fantasai> ... some discussion ...

<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

<fantasai> We want members of the public to help review tests.

<fantasai> We want to have a list of "final reviewers", and publish process for becoming a final reviewer

<fantasai> Molly: we can publicize through www-style, our blog, Eric Meyer's group, personal blogs

<fantasai> Elika: I've been waiting for licensing issues to issue a call for help with the test suite

<glazou> fantasai: I can extend the wiki to host comments on the test suite

<fantasai> Elika: There are several ways to help: reviewing testcases, reporting failures, fixing testcases in response to review comments, writing testcases

<fantasai> Peter: We shouldn't hold back on that for issuing a call for reviewers

<fantasai> Elika: Ming and I discussed using the wiki for reviews, should set that up first

daniel: meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/06/04 17:03:57 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133  of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/would like to hear/I haven't heard/
Succeeded: s/daniel/fantasai/
Succeeded: s/position/distance/
Succeeded: s/daniel/peter/
Succeeded: s/daniel/david/
Found ScribeNick: Ming
Inferring Scribes: Ming

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Arron Bert David_Baron Elika Hixie Microsoft Ming Molly_Holzschlag ScribeNick anne background-position background-postion bjoern daniel david dbaron fantasaI glazou hsivonen jason jason_cranfordtea jdaggett krijnh molly myakura peter plinss plinss_ trackbot
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy

WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Got date from IRC log name: 04 Jun 2008
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/06/04-css-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]