IRC log of css on 2008-07-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:10:55 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #css
16:10:55 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:11:04 [plinss]
rrsagent, make logs public
16:11:19 [SteveZ]
Scribe: SteveZ
16:11:39 [melinda]
Meeting: CSS WG Teleconf
16:11:49 [Zakim]
16:12:28 [plinss]
16:12:50 [SteveZ]
Issue 51 - Core grammar for @rules conflicts with CSS3 features
16:13:15 [SteveZ]
issue is how to skip invalid @rules
16:13:17 [glazou]
Zakim, who is noisy
16:13:17 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is noisy', glazou
16:13:21 [plinss]
16:13:23 [glazou]
Zakim, who is noisy?
16:13:34 [Zakim]
glazou, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: glazou (9%), Bert (18%)
16:13:49 [glazou]
Bert, do the clicks I hear come from your phone ?
16:14:04 [Bert]
I hear some soft clicks, yes.
16:14:13 [Bert]
Should I redial?
16:14:34 [Zakim]
16:14:36 [SteveZ]
DG: is there an issue with the object model
16:14:49 [plinss]
16:14:49 [Zakim]
16:15:10 [SteveZ]
PL: I do not believe there is an affect on the object model
16:16:18 [SteveZ]
PL: some browers will see an embedded @rule as an invalid selector and will gobble up to a semicolon
16:16:50 [SteveZ]
PL: others will look for matching braces following the embedded rule and will find the next @rule
16:17:10 [plinss]
s/@rule/style rule
16:18:11 [SteveZ]
PL: the core proposal is always parsed as an @rule no matter where you find it.
16:19:09 [glazou]
Bert, yeah that's your phone, we can't hear you
16:19:27 [Bert]
[ ruleset | media | page ]
16:20:29 [SteveZ]
BB: Instead putting "Stylesheet" as Elika suggests, we list the three cases that are allowed
16:20:43 [fantasai]
I do not suggest that anymore
16:20:55 [fantasai]
bjoern pointed out problems with it
16:21:10 [fantasai]
Currently I only suggest changing the prose as described in the proposal I sent last night
16:22:34 [SteveZ]
PL: What you propose would not work for user defined @rules (which would be seen as invalid selectors)
16:23:17 [plinss]
16:24:05 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #css
16:24:39 [SteveZ]
PL: two issues 1) paged media will allow embedded @rules and 2) how to handle unknown or invalid @rules
16:27:29 [Zakim]
16:27:42 [fantasai]
zakim, ? is fantasai
16:27:42 [Zakim]
+fantasai; got it
16:27:50 [fantasai]
zakim, mute me
16:27:50 [Zakim]
fantasai should now be muted
16:28:11 [SteveZ]
PL: I am unconvinced that Elikas proposal of last night really solves the problem; it does address the problem of embedded @rules but there is nothing to address how to parse an illegal @rule
16:29:11 [SteveZ]
DG: authors will understand if we throw away a well-formed @rule, but will not understand throwing away content up to a semicolon
16:29:20 [fantasai] does handle illegal @rules, inside @media statements only however
16:30:09 [fantasai]
zakim, unmute me
16:30:09 [Zakim]
fantasai should no longer be muted
16:30:51 [SteveZ]
SZ: if you find a @rule anywhere, if illegal, try to parse it as an @rule and if it is a well formed @rule then discard the whole rule and only the rule
16:31:29 [SteveZ]
EE: eventually, everywhere you have a style rule you should be able to put an @rule.
16:31:47 [fantasai]
you should parse an @rule the same as outside that context
16:31:57 [glazou]
fantasai agreed
16:31:57 [SteveZ]
DG: if you encounter an invalid rule, then you should not throw away the next rule.
16:32:21 [SteveZ]
PL: the difficulty is detecting what the next rule is
16:33:02 [fantasai]
EE: I don't think we should change parsing rules for declaration blocks.
16:33:06 [SteveZ]
EE: we should limit this change to @media in 2.1 because it is the only place where stylerules are embedded in some other block.
16:33:07 [glazou]
bert we can't hear you at all
16:33:08 [Zakim]
16:33:20 [fantasai]
EE: I think we should leave those as-is: we don't know how we want to extend that syntax in the future
16:33:25 [dsinger]
can someone who is typing fast move the keyboard away fropm the mike (por mute)?
16:33:30 [glazou]
16:33:34 [Bert]
The q is if we want to allow @page in @media in 2.1, (because it isn't actually forbidden anywhere...)
16:33:45 [dsinger]
16:33:45 [fantasai]
zakim, mute me
16:33:47 [Zakim]
fantasai should now be muted
16:33:53 [dsinger]
16:34:00 [Zakim]
16:34:26 [fantasai]
EE: but we should fix @media; I think that's the only place in CSS2.1 where we have style rules inside a block
16:34:31 [fantasai]
zakim, unmute me
16:34:31 [Zakim]
fantasai should no longer be muted
16:36:29 [SteveZ]
EE: The handling of @rule throw away is different in stylerules and declaration blocks; in the later adding the @rule throwaway is big issue
16:37:10 [SteveZ]
EE: we could allow @rules in declarations if we require a semicolon after them
16:37:20 [fantasai]
EE: or place them after all declarations
16:38:15 [SteveZ]
EE: there are no situations in 2.1 where the above is required; the need in in CSS3
16:38:49 [Bert]
This is a pain :-(
16:38:53 [SteveZ]
PL: This leaves us we weird restrictions on where @rules can go or must be placed; I am not happy about that
16:38:54 [glazou]
16:39:09 [Bert]
Everywhere where you have decalration, you *only * have decls.
16:39:19 [Bert]
@rules were supposed to be mixed with rulesets, not decls.
16:39:37 [glazou]
that's for now, but in the future ?
16:40:23 [Bert]
The grammar doesn't recognize an at-rule inside a declaration, it will be a bunch of tokens which happens to start with an ATKEUWORD.
16:40:31 [SteveZ]
EE and BB: at issue is making a change to the core grammer
16:40:57 [Bert]
Margin boxes inside @page were a mistake. How did that happen? :-(
16:41:23 [SteveZ]
MG: We know that @margin box rules in CSS3 will require this change
16:41:50 [melinda]
s/will require this change/will be affected by a change here.
16:43:21 [Bert]
We do have options, Paged Media is not a REC yet...
16:43:27 [molly]
molly has joined #css
16:44:16 [glazou]
hi molly!
16:44:46 [SteveZ]
PL: altho adding the @rule handling to declarations would be a big change to the grammer, but it would ot be a big change to most implementations
16:44:54 [molly]
hi glazou. Apologies for lateness, also no phone today
16:45:34 [fantasai]
EE: If you want to push for that change, then I insist that dbaron be present for the discussion.
16:45:56 [SteveZ]
PL: we have consensus on handling @rules between rulesets, but we need further discussion on the handling of @rules in declartion blocks
16:46:06 [Bert]
Don't break future extensibility! The core grammar must remain stable.
16:46:58 [fantasai]
16:47:23 [SteveZ]
EE: can we split this into two issues: one for @rules between rulesets (@media blocks) and the second for @rules in declarations
16:48:18 [SteveZ]
PL: current grammer says that @rules are not allowed in rule sets so above proposal does address this problem
16:48:58 [fantasai]
16:49:03 [SteveZ]
EE: There are two grammers; the 2.1 grammer which is helpful not authorative and the authorative grammer
16:49:10 [fantasai]
"The grammar below defines the syntax of CSS 2.1. It is in some sense, however, a superset of CSS 2.1 as this specification imposes additional semantic constraints not expressed in this grammar. A conforming UA must also adhere to the forward-compatible parsing rules, the selectors notation, the property and value notation, and the unit notation."
16:49:45 [fantasai]
s/the authorative grammar/the core grammar/
16:51:44 [glazou]
16:52:02 [molly]
this may seem a stupid question, but what is the advantage of being able to use @rules inside a declaration?
16:52:15 [molly]
is there a use case somewhere Elika that I can look at?
16:52:47 [SteveZ]
BB: is the minimal fix for this issue and it also says that @page is not allowed in @media
16:52:47 [sylvaing]
+1 for molly's question
16:52:52 [fantasai]
molly: we're discussing forwards-compatible parsing
16:53:11 [fantasai]
molly: plinss is arguing that we might want to allow it in the future, and so it should be parsed in a way compatible with that possibility
16:53:24 [dsinger]
16:53:30 [SaloniR]
16:53:31 [glazou]
fantasai: mute pls
16:53:32 [fantasai]
molly: bert and I are arguing that it's a big change to 2.1 and affects the core grammar, and therefore we should not change that
16:53:34 [molly]
I'm just trying to imagine a case where that would even be necessary
16:53:57 [sylvaing]
* is just amazed by the sound of fantasai's fierce typing
16:53:58 [Bert]
Molly, agree 100%, but problem is that Paged Media somehow started putting @rules in front of declarations :-(
16:54:34 [molly]
I understand the argument heh, I don't really understand the need
16:55:03 [fantasai]
"Note: Future levels of CSS may allow at-rules in @media."
16:55:51 [Bert]
I argued in to allow @page in @media already in CSS 2.1, so that there is less diff. between 2 and 3...
16:56:41 [SteveZ]
SZ: the note should say that forward-compatible parsing of @rules inside at media is required to allow the relaxation of the restriction on @rules in @media; for example to allow @page in @media
16:56:56 [molly]
thanks Bert, I see it now.
16:57:08 [SteveZ]
s/relaxation/the future relaxation/
16:58:00 [SteveZ]
MG: I want to make sure that people do not test to make sure that @page does not occur in @media
16:58:52 [Zakim]
16:59:20 [Bert]
I think Melinda is saying that a UA must now choose to be CSS 2.1 or CSS3, but cannot be both, because one *must ignore* what the other *must accept*.
17:00:44 [SteveZ]
SZ: the problem that Melinda raises is common to forward compatible usage: something that was undefined in some context to day may be defined in the future
17:01:51 [Bert]
Ignoring because you don't know what it measn (@foo) is diff. from ignoring because the spec says you must (@page)
17:02:37 [sylvaing]
should the spec say you must ignore @page or define a way for CSS2.1 UAs to gracefully ignore future @xyz ?
17:03:43 [glazou]
bye people
17:03:50 [molly]
bye daniel!
17:03:54 [Zakim]
17:04:07 [SteveZ]
PL and DG: allowing @page (to be processed) would make a change to the object model
17:04:49 [SteveZ]
All: that seems to be too big a change to 2.1
17:06:02 [molly]
That seems dangerous to do in general, since I bet implementation will be prioritized as low by most implementers
17:06:32 [molly]
just to allow for at-rule parsing within a declaration, that is
17:07:37 [Bert]
Revised revised proposal (based on fantasai's): State in 7.2.1 that "@page rules inside @media are invalid in CSS2.1. Invalid at-rules inside @media blocks must be ignored per 4.2 Rules for handling parsing errors."
17:07:44 [molly]
so the in-declaration at-rule starts its life as an at-risk feature :)
17:07:57 [SteveZ]
REsolution: Accept Elika's proposal with Melinda's note to not test to make sure that @page does not occur
17:08:56 [SaloniR]
That would mean allowing embedded @media rules in CSS 2.1
17:09:43 [Zakim]
17:09:44 [dsinger]
17:09:45 [Zakim]
17:09:46 [Zakim]
17:09:47 [Zakim]
17:09:47 [Zakim]
17:09:50 [Zakim]
17:10:02 [Bert]
Yes, maybe we want nested @media, too :-)
17:10:06 [SteveZ]
Above proposed resolution was withdrawn for lack of a consensus
17:10:16 [Bert]
Although I would be against that, but on other grounds (usability)
17:10:25 [Zakim]
17:10:27 [Zakim]
17:10:28 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
17:10:29 [Zakim]
Attendees were glazou, plinss, SteveZ, arronei, George, Bert, Melinda_Grant, [Microsoft], +1.206.324.aaaa, sylvaing, dsinger, fantasai
17:10:32 [molly]
I thought it was a good consensus for 2.1
17:10:35 [molly]
er, good plan
17:10:41 [SteveZ]
zakim, make minutes
17:10:41 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'make minutes', SteveZ
17:10:59 [SteveZ]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:10:59 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate SteveZ
17:34:58 [Bert]
Funny, I was looking when and why we said that @page inside @media was not allowed. Haven't found it yet, but found a message from Peter, then still of Netscape, suggesting that the grammar appendix is wrong and @page *should* be allowed. Reply from Glazou, then still of EDF, warning that Paged Media uses nested @rules...
17:35:10 [Bert]
Are we replaying 1999?
17:40:49 [George]
George has left #css
18:28:30 [Hixie]
Hixie has joined #css
18:45:18 [Hixie]
Hixie has joined #css
19:36:42 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #css
19:54:42 [fantasai]
Arrgggh! How can we have spent an *entire hour* discussing this minor parsing issue and not gotten a resolution!?
20:19:29 [Bert]
One reason is that we somehow mixed the pb of margin boxes inside @page with @page inside @media. Only the latter is an issue for CSS 2.1.
20:25:21 [fantasai]
yes,the discussions veered very far off topic
20:25:25 [fantasai]
well not very far
20:25:30 [fantasai]
but far enough
20:57:25 [fantasai]
RRSAgent: make logs public
21:03:56 [arronei]
arronei has joined #CSS
21:43:52 [Hixie]
Hixie has joined #css
22:14:25 [fantasai]
Bert: btw, will you be around the week before the F2F? I will be in London, I was thinking to spend the week getting the next Backgrounds and Borders draft completed
22:14:40 [fantasai]
Bert: we will be in the same timezone, so it would be easy to discuss any remaining issues
22:14:54 [Bert]
I will be in my office.
22:15:05 [fantasai]
22:15:14 [Bert]
Not the same time zone, but almost
22:15:19 [fantasai]
22:15:23 [fantasai]
but close enough :)
22:15:28 [fantasai]
esp compared to right now ;)
22:15:34 [Bert]
22:23:19 [fantasai]
Bert: did you talk with OMA about removing vertical frmo Marquee?
22:23:25 [fantasai]
you had an action item on that
22:23:51 [Bert]
I sent e-mail, but got no response so far.
22:24:03 [Bert]
Sent it to CDF as well.
22:24:50 [Bert]
Only response I got was from SYMM, but with a remark on another point.
22:25:10 [Bert]
Viz., that SMIL3 also has something marquee-like.
22:47:25 [Hixie]
Hixie has joined #css