IRC log of css on 2008-08-20

Timestamps are in UTC.

08:18:05 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #css
08:18:05 [RRSAgent]
logging to
08:18:11 [dbaron]
RRSAgent, make logs public
08:18:24 [plh]
plh has joined #css
08:18:35 [Bert]
Scribe: Bert
08:18:39 [Bert]
ScribeNick: Bert
08:18:50 [Bert]
Topic: Text layout
08:20:36 [fantasai]
Chair: #css
08:20:58 [Bert]
People are setting up the projector. Alex will project a demo.
08:22:05 [Bert]
Picture on the screen shows many combinations of text directions.
08:22:20 [Bert]
Including different positions of scrollbars
08:22:53 [Bert]
Fantasai: I think the scrollbar positions are wrong. Should always be in the same place, for usability.
08:24:11 [fantasai]
howcome and glazou arrive
08:24:38 [fantasai]
Attendees: howcome, dbaron, glazou, salonir, phillippe, jdaggett, stevez, alexmog, bert, fantasai, anne
08:28:45 [plh]
08:29:23 [fantasai]
peterl walks by the window, will be here soon we hope
08:32:10 [fantasai]
08:32:14 [fantasai]
08:37:59 [plinss_]
plinss_ has joined #css
08:39:07 [Bert]
Interlude: quick round the table, now that everybody is here.
08:46:07 [Bert]
Text layout topic postponed.
08:46:13 [Bert]
Topic: CSS 2.1 issues
08:48:17 [Bert]
Topic: CSS 2.1 issue 14
08:48:24 [Bert]
08:48:48 [Bert]
David: Proposal needs replacing. The condition it includes is always true.
08:49:36 [Bert]
David: Issue is when element's top & bottom collapses in presence of min-height.
08:50:22 [Bert]
David: If min-height happens to be exactly the intrinsic height, spec currently says margins don't collapse.
08:50:58 [Bert]
Fantasai: My proposal: don't say less than or equal, but say "effecting height."
08:51:24 [fantasai]
08:51:34 [Bert]
Fantasai: Bert had some reference to another part of the spec. which might help as well.
08:52:15 [fantasai]
Fantasai: alternate proposal, change "less than" to "not affecting" and "greater than" to "not affecting"
08:52:29 [Bert]
Steve: David, are you concerned about the word "affect"?
08:52:33 [Bert]
David: Yes.
08:52:57 [Bert]
Steve: True that height is *always* affected by min-height in a sense...
08:53:10 [fantasai]
08:53:30 [Bert]
Fantasai: This is Bert's message.
08:53:57 [fantasai]
ACTION: dbaron write new proposed text for Issue 14
08:53:58 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-91 - Write new proposed text for Issue 14 [on David Baron - due 2008-08-27].
08:54:31 [Bert]
Peter: Issue also affects max-height.
08:54:39 [Bert]
David: Yes, the action applies to that as well.
08:55:16 [Bert]
Peter: Are we sure everybody agrees with the behavior, apart form the wording?
08:55:28 [Bert]
David: I can make text before the end of this ftf.
08:55:54 [Bert]
Daniel: Let's try to come back to this tomorrow then.
08:56:23 [fantasai]
RESOLVED: to change spec so that case where auto height is equal to min/max height margin collapsing is not disabled. Exact wording to be determined later
08:56:29 [fantasai]
08:56:32 [Bert]
Topic: CSS 2.1 issue 42
08:56:58 [Bert]
Fantasai: About static position, should also include assumed 'clear: none'
08:57:24 [Bert]
Fantasai: I have no opinion.
08:58:05 [Bert]
David: I don't like to think about that...
08:58:13 [fantasai]
The suggested addition matches what most UAs do, with the exception
08:58:13 [fantasai]
of IE7, but IE8 beta 1 seems to match other UAs now. See [1] for
08:58:13 [fantasai]
test details.
08:58:20 [fantasai]
er that's not the testcase url
08:58:25 [fantasai]
08:58:31 [Bert]
Fantasai: I have a test case that shows that clear is not honored when finding static position.
09:00:34 [Bert]
Fantasai: The second blue has the same 'clear' as the first, but is positioned. You can see the second blue is not pushed down as the first one is.
09:01:21 [Bert]
Alex: The easier it is to compute the static position the better.
09:01:33 [Bert]
Alex: Ignoring clear thus seems right thing to do.
09:01:56 [Bert]
Fantasai: No opinion on whther it is better, but at least we have more interop that way.
09:02:25 [Bert]
Steve/Daniel: Still confused about what it means...
09:02:59 [Bert]
David explains the basic case, 'position: absolute; top: auto'
09:03:10 [r12a]
r12a has joined #css
09:03:39 [Bert]
Steve: It does seem to make sense to use the initial valiue of clear...
09:04:09 [Bert]
Fantasai: It makes it easier to express that to say "as if clear had been none."
09:05:25 [Bert]
Alex: A number of things happen, becomes block, taken out of flow... so concept of where it *would* have been becomes dificult.
09:05:46 [fantasai]
I was saying that if you consider that there may have been text/margins after the cleared-positioned element, then it gets complicated to figure out the static position
09:05:51 [Bert]
Alex: Who wants to guess at where it would have been if it had floated!?
09:06:39 [Bert]
Alex: For 'display: block', logic is fairly simple: the static pos. is on the next line. For clear there is more work to do.
09:06:57 [Bert]
David: It's not that much more complicated, just yet another thing to look at.
09:07:14 [Bert]
Peter: And 'clear' can make things move *up* can't it?
09:07:27 [Bert]
Fantasai: We ficed the spec that that doens't happen anymore.
09:07:38 [Bert]
09:08:12 [Bert]
David: The spec also says that the UA is free to approximate the position...
09:08:57 [glazou]
glazou has joined #css
09:09:02 [glazou]
09:09:39 [jdaggett]
jdaggett has joined #css
09:10:09 [jdaggett]
ah port 80...
09:11:47 [Bert]
Proposal strawpoll: 3 yes, rest abstains
09:12:07 [plinss_]
plinss_ has joined #css
09:14:02 [Bert]
Anne: We're probably OK with changing to the proposal...
09:14:34 [Bert]
People are looking at Opera's behavior. Opera seems to apply clear, but also seems to have some problem, maybe with margins.
09:14:54 [Bert]
Firefox ignores the clear.
09:15:30 [glazou]
Opera has no interoperability issue, it only has a bug :-)
09:16:24 [Bert]
IE7 behavior appears difficult to interpret.
09:16:45 [fantasai]
Webkit is compatible with Firefox
09:17:02 [fantasai]
glazou: apparently the proposal makes sense to all browser vendors
09:18:01 [Bert]
Daniel: Seems we have implementations and promises of change, so we can accept the proposal. Is that correct?
09:18:24 [Bert]
Alex: IE8 *does* ignore clear, what you see is an artifact of something else.
09:18:31 [fantasai]
RESOLVED: accept proposal for Issue 42
09:19:10 [Bert]
Topic: CSS 2.1 issue 53
09:19:22 [Bert]
09:19:43 [Bert]
How does justification work in pre?
09:21:13 [Bert]
Topic: CSS 2.1 issue 60
09:22:16 [Bert]
The issue is described in a 25-page document...
09:22:26 [fantasai]
09:22:27 [Bert]
Topic: CSS 2.1 issue 49
09:22:38 [Bert]
Topic: CSS 2.1 issue 48 & 49
09:22:42 [fantasai]
09:23:01 [Bert]
s/Topic: CSS 2.1 issue 49//
09:23:51 [fantasai]
dbaron: goal is to use the next available bolder/lighter font
09:24:02 [fantasai]
dbaron: definition of computed value used to be incompatible with this
09:24:13 [fantasai]
dbaron: we fixed this, but didn't remove the old text completley
09:24:31 [Bert]
David describes issue. Computing 'bolder' involves stepping to next available weight. But computed value may be a non-existent weight. Not all text in spec was corrected to reflect that.
09:25:13 [Bert]
David: You don't know the available weights and there may also be multiple fonts involved in an element.
09:25:17 [fantasai]
jdaggett: Windows has problems with weights. In Windows you have only two weights. On Mac this is more of an issue
09:25:48 [fantasai]
glazou does not like the way computed values for font-weight is a tuple when the property takes a single value.
09:26:05 [fantasai]
glazou: If the computed value is not a valid value, it is very complex
09:26:21 [fantasai]
jdaggett: we have a similar issue with font-stretch, where we have wider and narrower
09:26:29 [Bert]
Daniel: I don't like that value is one keyword, but computed value can be *two* keywords. You cannot write down the computed value.
09:26:31 [fantasai]
dbaron: whatever we decide for font-weight should also apply to font-stretch
09:26:59 [fantasai]
dbaron: the other issue is that the way multiple occurrences of bolder/lighter compound with each other isn't really defined in the spec
09:27:07 [Bert]
David: Spec is unclear about sequences of multiple bolder and ligher.
09:27:17 [fantasai]
dbaron: you could view the computed value of font-weight as a base weight followed by an ordered sequence of bolders and lighters
09:27:43 [fantasai]
dbaron: or you can see it as the sum of bolders and lighters, e.g. bolderx3 or lighterx2
09:27:56 [fantasai]
dbaron: this gives different results
09:28:23 [Bert]
John: Have to carry around complex datastructures for cases that never happen.
09:29:08 [Bert]
John: Want to make it simpler. Bolder just bumps the weight by two steps.
09:29:09 [fantasai]
John: We should do something simpler.
09:29:28 [fantasai]
John: 400 to 500 usually won't trigger a bolder font
09:29:43 [fantasai]
John: bumbing it up to 600 will get you a bolder font, because 500 falls back to normal
09:31:43 [Bert]
Discussion about stepping by 100 or 200 and what the effect is if font has *all* weights (synthesized, e.g.).
09:31:51 [fantasai]
dbaron: there's three options for what the computed value should be
09:31:59 [Bert]
David draws on white board.
09:32:10 [fantasai]
dbaron: Option A, which was vaguely implied in CSS2, is it's some value 100-900
09:32:28 [Bert]
David: option A: computed value is a single number 100-900
09:32:33 [fantasai]
dbaron: Option B, it's some value 100-900 and then an integer representing the number of bolders/lighters applied
09:32:45 [fantasai]
dbaron: option C, it's value 100-900 and then a sequence
09:33:06 [fantasai]
dbaron: Difference between B and C ...
09:33:20 [Bert]
David: option B: number 100-900 plus the sum of the bolders (+100) and lighters (-100)
09:33:49 [Bert]
David: Option C: weight 100-900 and *sequence* of steps bolder and lighter.
09:34:12 [Bert]
David: Options B and C are not the same, depending on the fonts.
09:34:28 [fantasai]
<span> <span> <span> [jing] B </span> </span> </span>
09:34:46 [Bert]
David: Option C is more complex.
09:35:03 [Bert]
Steve: Now I understand why this is an edge case... :-)
09:35:42 [glazou]
C is better, right, but it's also totally crazy and means nobody will ever use the computed value of font-weight
09:36:06 [Bert]
John: The computed style is not itself a useful value in options B/C.
09:36:45 [Bert]
Steve: There are many fonts where weights differ in only one step (100).
09:36:54 [fantasai]
09:37:48 [fantasai]
glazou: a lot of websites use 'bolder' rather than 'bold'
09:38:07 [Bert]
Daniel: Many people who use 'bolder' expect to go from 'normal' to 'bold'.
09:38:27 [fantasai]
dbaron: For GetComputedStyle, there are manyt hings you could do. You could look up the fonts and return a numeric value.
09:38:33 [fantasai]
dbaron: I'm more concerned about what inherits.
09:39:40 [Bert]
Steve: If you mix fonts, option C seems overly complex for little gain in practice. It's the theoretically right way, but is it worth it?
09:40:01 [Bert]
David: I think there are problems with C as well.
09:40:30 [fantasai]
Peter: Say you have a set font. Later you go bolder. Inside that you go lighter. Shouldn't you be back where you started?
09:40:41 [Bert]
Peter: After 'bolder' and 'lighter', don't you expect to be back where you were?
09:42:22 [Bert]
Steve: 'bolder' is more reliable, because fonts don't always have bolder weight at 700.
09:42:42 [Bert]
Daniel/David: I expect many people use 'bolder' and 'bold' as synonyms.
09:42:52 [glazou]
glazou: most web authors don't even know 100-900 values exist...
09:44:13 [Bert]
Peter: Saying normal and then bolder, the author expects to see something bolder if it exists, so just bumping by 100 doesn't work.
09:45:25 [Bert]
Peter: Trick I used was encoding B all in a single integer, something like 101 stands for weight 100 + 1 times bolder.
09:45:54 [Bert]
David: The spec has been modified many times and not always consitently.
09:46:13 [fantasai]
dbaron notes that GetComputedStyle doesn't return the "computed style" in the CSS2.1 sense, but rather the "computed style" of the CSS2 spec, which is more like the "used style" of CSS2.1
09:47:03 [Bert]
David: The text I want to remove is that, if there is no darker font, the computed value is bumped by 100.
09:48:12 [fantasai]
... because it is leftover from before we fixed the computed value to use a tuple
09:48:13 [Bert]
Peter: If the OS *can* make an arbitrary weight, then that is what the UA should use.
09:49:45 [Bert]
David: There were two parts to this issue: removing the text just quoted about unavailable weight, and chosing between options B and C.
09:50:36 [fantasai]
John: if you have bolder, bolder, lighter and only two weights available, with B you get bold, with C you get normal
09:50:43 [Bert]
John: One typical question is what we expect after normal + blder + bolder + lighter: If font has one bold only, are we back at normal?
09:50:53 [anne]
09:51:07 [Bert]
09:51:49 [jdaggett]
09:52:11 [anne]
09:52:18 [anne]
(works prolly better in IE)
09:52:44 [dbaron]
09:52:57 [Bert]
David gives a simpler test.
09:54:40 [Bert]
Moz is bold, Opera is normal, Safari is normal.
09:55:49 [fantasai]
Peter: What does the author expect in this case?
09:57:29 [Bert]
Peter rephrases the difference between C and B. Does 2 bolder + 1 lighter end up at normal or at bold (if font has only one bold)?
09:59:06 [Bert]
John: There are few systems in practice with fonts with multiple weights. Basically only some Macs.
09:59:51 [Bert]
Hakon: We need to cater for higher quality fonts, there will be more of them.
10:00:37 [Bert]
Steve: Many fonts have weights that are not normal and bold, has to support those.
10:01:02 [Bert]
Fantasai: We can't really answer the question what an author expects after bolder+bolder+lighter?
10:01:08 [Bert]
10:01:17 [fantasai]
because we have no web designers here today
10:01:33 [fantasai]
SteveZ: the other important question is should bolder+lighter give you back the normal font?
10:02:15 [fantasai]
SteveZ: the sequence won't always do that, if e.g. there is no bolder font but there is a lighter font
10:03:08 [dbaron]
Should we take a B vs. C straw poll?
10:03:20 [glazou]
10:03:26 [Bert]
Steve: Think e.g., about the case that there is no bolder, but there is a lighter one. In option C, normal + bolder + lighter will give you that ligher one, not the normal one. So option C is not correct for this case.
10:04:06 [Bert]
Philippe: Maybe this is not worth fixing in the time scale for CSS 2.1.
10:06:00 [Bert]
Discussion about whether it is important (and if so, when) that computed value is a "string" in CSS syntax.
10:06:18 [Bert]
It's an issue for the DOM, is it also for CSS 2.1?
10:07:17 [Bert]
Daniel: Should we do a strawpoll?
10:07:56 [fantasai]
Anne: abstain
10:08:00 [fantasai]
fantasai: B
10:08:08 [fantasai]
Bert: 60% B 40% C
10:08:22 [SteveZ]
SteveZ has joined #css
10:08:24 [Bert]
John: The behavior and the syntax of the computed value are separate questions.
10:08:28 [fantasai]
Rcihard: abstain
10:08:31 [fantasai]
Alex: C
10:08:33 [fantasai]
Peter: B
10:08:36 [fantasai]
Steve: B
10:08:38 [fantasai]
John: B
10:08:44 [fantasai]
Phillippe: Abstain
10:08:48 [fantasai]
Saloni: Abstain
10:08:57 [fantasai]
Daniel: 60% B 40% C
10:08:59 [fantasai]
David: B
10:09:03 [fantasai]
Howcome: B
10:10:44 [fantasai]
glazou: Add a note saying that GetComputedStyle is unpredictable for anything aside from normal and bold
10:11:25 [Bert]
John: IE already has an extesnion to getcomputedstyle for the font weight.
10:11:59 [Bert]
Daniel: Seems we have preference for B, but do we have consensus?
10:12:12 [fantasai]
Peter: My concern is what happens when we start getting rich fonts with multiple weights.
10:12:26 [Bert]
Peter: I want to be sure that result is intuitive for fonts with more than two weights.
10:13:22 [Bert]
Peter: Imagine a font with seven weights and he does lots of 'bolder' and maybe one lighter, but then the page gets displayed on a system with just one bold.
10:14:14 [Bert]
Peter: We need to describe what we want 'bolder' to really *mean*. Different people have a different interpretation.
10:14:51 [Bert]
Daniel: Take a break and come back a bit later?
10:15:08 [Bert]
Fantasai: Could ask Molly and Jason, but maybe can also just resolve it now.
10:15:14 [fantasai]
RESOLVED: Accepted proposal for Issue 48
10:15:19 [fantasai]
(49 still open)
10:15:43 [Bert]
[Break 15 mins]
10:28:54 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #css
10:33:44 [Bert]
Daniel: Extra agenda for Friday: charter
10:34:29 [glazou]
hi doug
10:34:40 [Bert]
Daniel: ... about process, milestones, etc., and explaining things to Philippe.
10:35:32 [Bert]
Back to issue 49.
10:35:55 [Bert]
Alex: Not sure the implementations will want to change.
10:36:14 [Bert]
Peter: How about in a future version?
10:37:02 [Bert]
Alex: Maybe designers should avoid 'bolder' and 'lighter' and we should say so in the spec.
10:37:29 [Bert]
Alex: Because it may have effect on soem systems and not on others.
10:38:40 [Bert]
Richard: You were trying to find out how people use it. Should maybe ask that of some actual users.
10:39:30 [Bert]
John: We're defining edge case behavior. Should not say "don't use this" because in a world with two weights, it works as expected.
10:40:34 [Bert]
Fantasai: Even if we don't say anything in level 2, we should be precise in level 3.
10:40:58 [Bert]
Philippe: But there is something in level 2 already.
10:41:02 [glazou]
glazou has joined #css
10:41:39 [Bert]
John: How about font-stretch: wider?
10:41:52 [fantasai]
10:42:09 [fantasai]
"RESOLVED: The Markus Principle: ..." :)
10:42:13 [Bert]
Peter: Only reason to not define in CSS 2.1 mightbe that we have differing implementations.
10:42:47 [Bert]
Peter: But still want to decide what we'll have in level 3, even if we leave level 2 undefined.
10:43:04 [Bert]
Alex: Feedback from designers is necessary here.
10:43:20 [Bert]
Fantasai: Can Peter take an action to ask Molly and others?
10:44:27 [Bert]
Discussion about leaving it undefined in level 2 and under what conditions.
10:44:32 [myakura]
myakura has joined #css
10:44:46 [Bert]
Fantasai: OK with leaving CSS 2.1, as long as we decide what to do for level 3.
10:45:20 [Bert]
Daniel: Or just say that we will resolve for level 3, without saying what way.
10:45:43 [fantasai]
SteveZe: "A sequence of bolders and lighters may have different results in different UAs."
10:45:51 [Bert]
Steve: We can put a note that sequences of bolder and lighter may have different results on different sstems.
10:46:03 [fantasai]
Fantasai: add that this will be defined in CSS3
10:46:40 [Bert]
Daniel: "Seq. of bolder and lighter may have unpredictable result in level 2, but will be defined in level 3."
10:46:47 [fantasai]
Peter: Add dependence on UA, OS, and font availability
10:46:58 [fantasai]
Peter: So authors know how widely they need to test
10:47:05 [fantasai]
ACTION: fantasai Draft a note
10:47:06 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-92 - Draft a note [on Elika Etemad - due 2008-08-27].
10:47:33 [fantasai]
RESOLVED: Leave undefined in CSS2.1, add note as described above
10:47:40 [fantasai]
for ISSUE 49
10:48:08 [fantasai]
ACTION: Peter Consult Jason, Molly, other web designers, about what is expected behavior for bolder + lighter, bolder+bolder+lighter
10:48:08 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-93 - Consult Jason, Molly, other web designers, about what is expected behavior for bolder + lighter, bolder+bolder+lighter [on Peter Linss - due 2008-08-27].
10:48:43 [Bert]
Philippe: Can you add an issue on CSS3 Fonts about this, so that it doens't get lost?
10:48:57 [Bert]
Fantasai: Doing it right now...
10:49:58 [Bert]
Philippe: And can you add the test cases to that issue?
10:50:30 [fantasai]
ISSUE-61 recorded against CSS3 Fonts
10:51:01 [Bert]
Topic: CSS 2.1 issue 52
10:51:25 [dbaron]
10:51:52 [fantasai]
10:53:07 [Bert]
Issue is about practice of putting page-break on BR, which is not allowed by spec (unless BR is made a 'block')
10:53:32 [Bert]
David: Seems page-break is a bit like clear, for which we allow UAs to apply it to inlines.
10:53:58 [Bert]
Alex: Think it should apply only to BR, not to all inlines.
10:54:12 [Bert]
Bert: What is the difference between BR and SPAN?
10:55:34 [Bert]
Alex: Not a lot of interoperability on BR, e.g., applying :before to it.
10:55:36 [fantasai]
br { content: '\A'; white-space: pre; }
10:55:53 [fantasai]
but need to make 'clear' apply specially
10:56:06 [Bert]
Anne: That (Fantasai's rule) is what Opera does,
10:56:08 [fantasai]
Anne: That's how Opera implements <br>
10:56:49 [Bert]
Alex: What is the size and position of BR in Opera in DOM?
10:57:17 [Bert]
Fantasai: Same as <span> with a line feed...
10:58:09 [Bert]
Daniel: A 'page-break-before' on BR puts a blank line at the top of the page.
10:59:09 [Bert]
Steve: Whether page break applies shoudl depend on how the elt is styled, in particular whether it is block-level.
11:00:29 [Bert]
Daniel: One use case is a BODY consisting of nothing but text and BR. Want to break page at some BR.
11:00:51 [fantasai]
... or <pre> and <br>
11:00:59 [Bert]
Daniel: Users of word processors often work like that: turn some line break into a page break.
11:01:19 [anne]
(Opera's behavior with respect to the interaction of 'content', 'clear', and <br> is slightly weird.)
11:01:41 [Bert]
Steve: 'last-line-align' applies to last line before the BR.
11:01:41 [anne]
(The moment you use 'content' on <br> it no longer has special 'clear' behavior, even if it is "\A".)
11:02:19 [Bert]
Steve: So it looks also like a natural break point. It *looks* like a paragraph.
11:03:03 [Bert]
Daniel: BR could be used for page breaks as well. HTML doesn't have a page break element, but could imagine <BR TYPE=PAGE>
11:03:14 [fantasai]
fantasai: The same applies to '\A' in a white-space: pre element
11:03:39 [Bert]
Saloni: What if we apply page breaks to all elements, not only block-level?
11:04:17 [Bert]
Fantasai: We would make an exception for HTML: page break applies to block-level, except in HTML it also applies to...
11:05:21 [Bert]
Steve: Everywhere where last-line-align applies should also accept page break properties.
11:05:40 [anne]
fantasai, (since people are talking) you could just define some special construct and then HTML5 says that <br> is such a construct
11:05:43 [Bert]
David: Lines in PRE also have last-line-align' applied.
11:05:46 [anne]
fantasai, then magic langauges work too
11:06:07 [Bert]
David: Which of many "last" lines has the page break applied to?
11:07:26 [Bert]
Fantasai: Imagine a pre, *all* lines would have page break properties applied.
11:07:54 [Bert]
Steve: The alternative is that 'last-line-align' doens't apply.
11:08:20 [Bert]
Fantasai: The 'last-line-align' applies because there is a forced line break.
11:08:45 [Bert]
Steve: I wouldn't call that an inline element.
11:09:45 [Bert]
David: Maybe the term [inline] is not fully intuitive, but it *is* precisely defined.
11:11:11 [Bert]
Daniel: What about some XML format (because there are many now), where I want to turn some element into a page break? Think MS Word.
11:11:51 [Bert]
Alex: Many cases: line breaks, page breaks, paragraph breaks, and any of there with or without last line behavior.
11:11:54 [anne]
11:12:04 [Bert]
Alex: Seems we need 'display: break'
11:13:23 [Bert]
Peter: Steve's argument is a negative argument. He says *if* we do this then we have to do that. Not that we have to do "that."
11:14:10 [Bert]
Anne: Just adding 'display: block' when needed to make an element into a page break element is not a big deal.
11:14:37 [Bert]
Daniel: Consider editing perspective. It's easy to insert an empty element.
11:14:59 [fantasai]
br { white-space: pre; content: '\A'; }
11:15:07 [Bert]
Fantasai: Just insert an empty element with both page break and display:block
11:15:15 [fantasai]
br[type="page"] { display: block; content: none; page-break-before: always; }
11:15:49 [Bert]
Daniel: But we can't reproduce HTML's BR in XML.
11:16:12 [Bert]
Hakon: Yes you can, the sample style sheet shows how.
11:17:07 [Bert]
Fantasai: Anne and I are saying that you can get the functionality you want in XML.
11:17:21 [fantasai]
Fantasai: just without the quirkcs
11:17:46 [Bert]
Anne: Or we introduce an abtract magic element and then any language can decalre that some element act as that magic element.
11:19:29 [Bert]
Several people explain the problem of sequences of BR. The second and subsequent ones cannot be 'block' because they shouldn't collapse.
11:20:03 [Bert]
Hakon: Can solve that with selectors, BR + BR.
11:20:09 [anne]
11:20:32 [Bert]
Fantasai: The quirky behavior of BR is that 'clear' applies.
11:21:08 [Bert]
Peter: Now imagine I want to set 'content' on my BR, I lose the line breaking behavior.
11:21:18 [Bert]
Several: Just add the \A as well.
11:21:42 [Bert]
Peter: I want an extra property, or a 'display' value, for BR.
11:23:09 [Bert]
Hakon: But that doesn't work in current browsers.
11:23:40 [Bert]
Steve comes back to what "inline" means, doesn't think a \A can be called "inline."
11:24:42 [Bert]
Fantasai: So you don't want to call the span in "<pre>foo <span>[linebreak]</span> bar</pre>" inline? In CSS it is defined as inline.
11:25:19 [Bert]
Daniel: The width of the line box before the break is different.
11:25:27 [fantasai]
11:25:34 [Bert]
Hakon: Really? And does that matter at all?
11:26:22 [Bert]
Daniel: You can ask for the bounding rect of Fantasai's SPAN in the DOM. But it may not be relevant for this discussion.
11:27:13 [Bert]
Saloni: Do we all agree that page break applies to BR, independent of how we explain it?
11:27:32 [Bert]
Bert: No, don't make exceptions for HTML.
11:27:58 [Bert]
Alex: We (IE) have a special 'display' tupe (more or less) for BR.
11:28:29 [Bert]
Hakon: What then happens in IE if I set :before{content:"\A"} on the BR?
11:29:32 [Bert]
Hakon: Is that display type hardcoded? Or can you override it with a style rule?
11:29:45 [Bert]
Steve: Can you change BR to list-item?
11:29:54 [Bert]
Hakon: Should work in Opera, yes.
11:30:28 [Bert]
Peter: How can a user override the rules?
11:31:13 [Bert]
Peter: I like there to be a simple rule to make the BR behave one way or another. Make it not break a line, e.g.,
11:31:32 [Bert]
Hakon: That works in Opera.
11:31:56 [Bert]
Peter: I also want the way to override it consistent among browsers.
11:32:17 [Bert]
Daniel: That's not the question we are discussing. We started with page breaks...
11:32:37 [Bert]
Peter: And I don't want to use the 'content' proeprty.
11:32:42 [Bert]
Hakon: Why not?
11:33:27 [Bert]
No resolution for issue 52 right now.
11:34:30 [Bert]
David: If we decide for 'display: break', we can say that it applies to BR and in level 3 we can say that page-break and clear applies to elements with that display type.
11:35:32 [Bert]
Alex: We can just say in 2.1 that level 3 will provide a more generic approach.
11:36:13 [Bert]
Peter: I think we need the Markus principle again, because we cannot define it better in CSS 2.1.
11:37:52 [Bert]
Strawpoll proposed question: Should page-break-before/afetr apply to BR in CSS 2.1?
11:38:10 [Bert]
Peter: Make it more generic, and ask about a BR-like element instead of BR itself?
11:38:25 [anne]
-- <br> --
11:38:26 [fantasai]
<br type='lunch'>
11:38:27 [glazou]
<br type="LUNCH">
12:29:31 [jason_cranfordtea]
jason_cranfordtea has joined #css
12:36:46 [fantasai]
hi jason_cranfordtea!!
12:37:01 [jason_cranfordtea]
12:37:37 [fantasai]
jason_cranfordtea: we had a long discussion about font-weight today. I assure you you wouldn't have wanted to listen to it all, but finally it has boiled down to a question for you and Molly.
12:38:06 [jason_cranfordtea]
12:38:11 [jason_cranfordtea]
I saw that in the transcript
12:38:18 [fantasai]
jason_cranfordtea: cool
12:38:36 [fantasai]
up, we are restarting the meeting
12:38:37 [jason_cranfordtea]
expected behavior of lighter and bolder
12:38:42 [Bert]
Read: we didn't want to leave the discussion without deciding at least something, and so we decided to ask you :-)
12:38:42 [fantasai]
12:38:44 [fantasai]
when nested
12:39:05 [jason_cranfordtea]
so it's a question of inheritance?
12:39:16 [fantasai]
12:39:17 [jason_cranfordtea]
or absolute?
12:39:18 [fantasai]
it's a question of
12:39:23 [fantasai]
if you have three nested spans
12:39:30 [fantasai]
the outer two with 'bolder'
12:39:33 [fantasai]
the inner one with 'lighter'
12:39:38 [fantasai]
but your font only has two weights, normal and bold
12:39:48 [fantasai]
what is the text of the innermost span?
12:39:52 [fantasai]
is it normal or bold?
12:39:56 [jason_cranfordtea]
12:40:15 [jason_cranfordtea]
that's what I was thinking of
12:40:19 [fantasai]
then take that same page and render it with a font that has three weights
12:40:20 [jason_cranfordtea]
let me think of it
12:40:31 [fantasai]
the behavior should make sense to the author in both cases
12:40:36 [fantasai]
of course
12:41:45 [SteveZ]
Scribe: SteveZ
12:42:10 [SteveZ]
We are resuming after a lunch break
12:42:22 [SteveZ]
Topic: Definition of BR
12:43:35 [SteveZ]
This discussion is for CSS3
12:44:04 [SteveZ]
The definition is currently in the Generated Content draft
12:44:44 [SteveZ]
The content property does not apply to all elements in CSS 2.1
12:45:13 [anne]
(you need br { content:"\A"; ... } for cases such as <br>foobar</br> (possible in XHTML))
12:45:49 [dbaron]
ScribeNick: SteveZ
12:46:25 [Bert]
(You can do that with ':before {content: "\A"} br {content: none}' as well and still be compliant with the sample style sheet from level 2.)
12:46:36 [SteveZ]
Anne, listing solution mechanisms:
12:47:00 [SteveZ]
1. treat the HTML <BR> element as a special HTML only case
12:47:24 [SteveZ]
2. use display: block
12:47:35 [fantasai]
12:49:19 [SteveZ]
Anne: using content(/A) would not make "clear" apply to the element because it would still be an inline element
12:50:12 [SteveZ]
3. add a "line-break-*" properties that could apply to inlines
12:51:15 [SteveZ]
BB: would this mimic the current <BR> behavior w.r.t. one BR vs two BRs
12:52:21 [SteveZ]
EE: does "clear" apply to a run-in element, depending on what it is followed by?
12:52:38 [fantasai]
s/apply/apply sometimes/
12:53:18 [SteveZ]
DG: requirements include avoiding a special exception for HTML and making the BR element special
12:54:26 [SteveZ]
EE: would it be possible to make BR be a run-in; i.e. display: runin
12:54:36 [glazou]
12:54:58 [SteveZ]
DB: can you have multiple run-ins into the same block?
12:55:38 [SteveZ]
BB: if there are multiple run-ins only that last one is before the next block and has the run-in behavior
12:56:03 [SteveZ]
DB: note that BR adds height to the line before, note that line after.
12:56:33 [SteveZ]
DB: This may only apply in "quirks mode", but I am not sure about this
12:57:28 [SteveZ]
DB: It should not matter in standards mode unless a font-height is appled to the BR
12:58:41 [SteveZ]
Anne: in Opera, changing the font-size on the BR does not affect the line-height of the previous line
12:59:11 [SteveZ]
Anne: It does not in IE6 either
12:59:37 [SteveZ]
Anne: only Firefox shows the change of line-height
13:00:05 [anne]!doctype%20html%3E%3Cstyle%3E%20span%20{%20font-size%3A2em%20}%20%3C%2Fstyle%3E%0A...%3Cspan%3E%3Cbr%3E%3C%2Fspan%3E...
13:00:12 [anne]!DOCTYPE%20html%3E%3Cstyle%3E%20br%20%7B%20font-size%3A1.5em%20%7D%20%3C%2Fstyle%3E%0D%0A...%3Cbr%3E...
13:00:28 [SteveZ]
Anne: and the line-height change does not show up in quirks mode
13:00:49 [SteveZ]
Above are the test cases
13:08:07 [SteveZ]
HL: we have a way of defining BR in CSS, namely using the content property to insert a /A
13:08:20 [SteveZ]
Opera allows the content property on all elements
13:09:17 [SteveZ]
AM: the issue is having a definition that triggers that special behaviors of BR w.r.t. clear and page-break-*
13:09:41 [SteveZ]
SZ: the Opera solution does not work for clear or page-break-*
13:10:30 [SteveZ]
AM: is it OK to have content language (e.g. HTML) special exceptions
13:11:13 [SteveZ]
EE and Anne: we already have special cases
13:12:04 [SteveZ]
Anne: it is the element in the HtML namespace that is special cased
13:14:07 [anne]
What I said was that the HTML <body> element is special cased in HTML and XML (though the CSS 2.1 still needs an update regarding this)
13:14:20 [SteveZ]
DG: It is mandatory to have a way to put in hard line breaks, but special casing BR in HTML only is a hack that does not help in XML
13:15:32 [fantasai]
Steve: there four things about <br>
13:15:38 [fantasai]
Steve: 1. You get a line break
13:15:40 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #css
13:15:52 [fantasai]
Steve: 2. You get last-line alignement behavior in the previous line (due to the forced break)
13:15:56 [fantasai]
Steve: 3. Clear applies
13:16:01 [fantasai]
Steve: 4. Maybe page-break applies
13:16:09 [fantasai]
Steve: Most of these are because of the line
13:16:10 [fantasai]
13:16:59 [jason_cranfordtea]
Is there a reason that point 4 is not a certainty?
13:17:21 [fantasai]
it's not in the spec currently
13:17:39 [fantasai]
so it's the issue that started this whole discussion :)
13:19:36 [SteveZ]
Anne: if you want properties 3 and 4, you should set the display: block property on the BR
13:19:57 [fantasai]
Elika: The problem isn't with XML dialects. It's with backwards compatibility wrt clear on BR.
13:20:22 [fantasai]
Elika: In a new XML dialect, you can create a break element that behaves like <br> by using CG line breaks
13:20:38 [fantasai]
Elika: And if you want the element to clear (or page break) then you need to set display: block; at the same time.
13:20:47 [Bert]
(The "problem" is the same problem we have much too often, unfortunately: browsers have bugs and don't dare fixing them :-( )
13:20:53 [fantasai]
Elika: The problem we have here is that you can't do that with BR for backwards compatibility reasons
13:21:08 [fantasai]
Elika: Because right now you can set 'clear' without setting 'display: block;' and it works.
13:21:47 [fantasai]
Anne: I don't think it makes sense to spend so much time on this based on hypothetical XML vocabularies.
13:22:05 [fantasai]
Anne: If someone comes forward and says I need this behavior without setting 'display: block', then we can discuss it further
13:24:36 [dbaron]
<br><br><br clear="both"><br>
13:24:51 [dbaron]
(or do I mean "all" instead of "both"?)
13:25:19 [anne]
Google says all
13:25:28 [dbaron]
(For the record, I was saying verbally that markup like that is probably used a good bit on the Web.)
13:26:54 [SteveZ]
Anne and EE: you probably do not need all the quirks of BR if you are just trying to satisfy the requirement for a hard line break in XML
13:27:53 [fantasai]
hard line break, clear, and page-break
13:28:32 [SteveZ]
PL: what is wrong with adding a "break" value to display?
13:29:02 [SteveZ]
Anne: I think it adds more complexity, to the code and the tests
13:29:25 [SteveZ]
DG and PL: it simplifies the spec, because it removes all the special cases
13:31:20 [SteveZ]
EE: if you add the new display value, you must update the spec for the influence of this new value on the other properties.
13:33:13 [fantasai]
EE: If I were to define <br>, I'd define it as an inline element whose contents are a preserved line feed and to which the 'clear' property applies.
13:34:26 [SteveZ]
Many: it does not appear that the spec get vastly simpler whether or not you special case the <BR> element or add a "break" value
13:35:22 [SteveZ]
Anne: it is more difficult to test because one must test the behavior when this property value is combined with most of the other properties
13:36:53 [SteveZ]
BB: Since we have not needed a better defintion of BR up to now why are we so concerned about it now
13:37:21 [SteveZ]
SZ: becuase the issue of how does page-break-* apply
13:39:23 [fantasai]
SZ: What I got from this discussion is that using display: block; would satisfy the use case requirements for XML.
13:39:49 [fantasai]
SZ: So I would conclude that we should special-case BR, but also add a note explaining how to get similar behavior with another mechanism.
13:41:59 [SteveZ]
SZ: since display: block gives most of the properites that an XML document would want for a hard line break, we should adopt solution 1 with a note to explain the display: block mechanism
13:42:59 [fantasai]
Straw Poll for CSS2.1:
13:43:06 [fantasai]
0. No change to CSS 2.1
13:43:26 [SteveZ]
AM: if we are adopting option 1 in CSS2.1, it can describe all the specialiality, including page-break-* behavior
13:43:33 [fantasai]
1. Special-case XHTML <br> to take page-break, add a note explaining how to get it to work for other elements (by using 'display: block')
13:44:29 [fantasai]
Peter: I'm ok with saying that page-break also applies to "other elements", not calling out HTML:br
13:44:46 [fantasai]
13:44:54 [SteveZ]
PL: we could have a note, like that in Clear which does not call out the elements to which page-break-* applies
13:45:26 [fantasai]
1b. Say page-break may apply to "other elements"
13:47:44 [SteveZ]
The above Straw Poll is w.r.t. Issue 52 only and not for CSS3
13:48:29 [SteveZ]
Furthermore, the options apply to what is said about the page-break-* properties
13:49:15 [anne]
s/to take page-break/to take page-break and clear/
13:49:26 [anne]
s/XHTML <br>/(X)HTML <br>/
13:49:50 [Bert]
(option 4: page break applies to all elements?)
13:52:04 [SteveZ]
PL: option 1b was proposed so that we can, in the future, adhere to the Markus Principle, agreeing to define in CSS3 this clearly ambiguous behavior; the behavior is, at this point, intentionally left ambiguious to reflect current implementations
13:52:56 [fantasai]
play: block; (or some other block-level value)
13:53:56 [fantasai]
0. No normative change.
13:53:56 [fantasai]
Add a note to say that if you want this property to apply
13:53:56 [fantasai]
you have to set display: block; (or some other block-level
13:53:56 [fantasai]
13:53:56 [fantasai]
1a. Special-case HTML:br to say that page-break also applies
13:53:58 [fantasai]
Add a note to say that you can get page-break to apply to
13:54:01 [fantasai]
other break elements by saying 'display: block'.
13:54:03 [fantasai]
1b. Say page-break applies to block-level elements and may
13:54:06 [fantasai]
also be applied to "other elements"
13:54:08 [fantasai]
4. Page-break applies to all elements
13:54:11 [fantasai]
Howcome: 0, could live with 1a
13:54:13 [fantasai]
David: 1a, second choice 0
13:54:23 [fantasai]
Daniel: 0
13:54:37 [fantasai]
Saloni: 1b, then 1a
13:54:59 [fantasai]
John: abstain
13:55:13 [glazou]
Richard, PLH: abstain
13:55:16 [fantasai]
Steve: I can live with anything but 4
13:55:23 [fantasai]
Peter: 1b
13:55:37 [fantasai]
Alex: 50% on 1a or 1b
13:56:05 [fantasai]
Bert: 0, can live with 4 and 1b in that order
13:56:10 [dbaron]
(this is for CSS 2.1; options (2) and (3) could be relevant for css3)
13:56:23 [fantasai]
Elika: 0 or 1a
13:56:29 [fantasai]
Anne: 1a
13:57:30 [fantasai]
Steve: So we've observed that some implementations currently do this
13:57:38 [fantasai]
Steve: 2.1 should reflect what implementations do
13:58:15 [fantasai]
Steve: 1b seems consistent with that
13:58:34 [fantasai]
Steve: It seems you /may/.
13:58:41 [fantasai]
David: It seems unnecessarily broad to me.
13:59:01 [fantasai]
David: The clear definition is necessarily broad because of what CSS1 said
13:59:17 [fantasai]
Anne: The 'clear' part is a non-normative note. Normatively it's not allowed
13:59:48 [fantasai]
Peter: So to move CSS2.1 forward we either need a consensus, or we need to leave it vague and tackle in CSS3.
14:01:04 [SteveZ]
SZ: I thought the goal of CSS2.1 was to document what CSS implementation actually do and to be ambiguous where agreement cannot be reached; the goal of CSS3 is to remove ambiguities
14:02:39 [SteveZ]
BB, PL and DG: I cannot live with 1a
14:02:56 [fantasai]
Daniel: I see no consensus on definition of <br> or on whether page-break should apply to it
14:05:20 [Bert]
Daniel/Steve: How do we ask the next question, how do we find the best option that people can all live with?
14:05:35 [fantasai]
Fantasai: I note that 1b would allow page-break to apply to table-row elements, which we may actually want
14:05:48 [SteveZ]
DB: how about broadening 1b to say "may apply to inline elements"
14:06:06 [fantasai]
14:06:45 [fantasai]
Philippe: When you do a straw poll, you ask three questions: what do you want, what can you live with, what can you not live with?
14:08:53 [fantasai]
Straw poll: Which options can you not live with?
14:10:26 [SteveZ]
Everyone can live with 1b
14:10:40 [SteveZ]
AM and SR cannot live with 1b
14:11:01 [plh-css]
14:11:25 [SteveZ]
Anne, EE, AM, SR, DB cannot live with 0
14:11:33 [dbaron]
s/with 0/with 4/
14:12:03 [fantasai]
RESOLVED: Say that page-break "may apply" to other elements besides block-level elements
14:22:35 [dbaron]
14:26:01 [glazou]
14:28:01 [Bert]
14:39:01 [SteveZ]
We returned from a break at 15:40
14:41:09 [SteveZ]
Topic: test harness
14:41:33 [SteveZ]
EE: HP is working on this, has sent a prototype
14:43:22 [SteveZ]
EE: can run test from groups or single tests; has option to run least tested tests first
14:44:00 [SteveZ]
EE: What kinds of charts should the results component generate?
14:44:22 [SteveZ]
PL: How are tests placed in the harness?
14:45:04 [SteveZ]
EE: There is a script that can be run by someone on the W3C server team to move testcases into the harness
14:46:49 [SteveZ]
EE: currently, everynight there is a build of the testsuite; can add to chron job to run the script
14:47:28 [SteveZ]
PlH: Can you add a button that says, "I think this test is incorrect" to flag tests in question
14:48:27 [SteveZ]
EE: We think this will not be useful for tests used by the general public; getting e-mail messages seems to work better, but still not very well.
14:48:41 [SteveZ]
EE: we do not yet have a good system for reviewing tests
14:50:23 [SteveZ]
PlH: is there a way to delete results either because the tester has a bad track record or because the test has been changed?
14:50:31 [SteveZ]
EE: not yet
14:51:18 [SteveZ]
EE: the intent is that if a test changes, all past results will be removed so there is no prior history
14:52:41 [SteveZ]
EE: Have a display that shows a table with the tests as the row labels and the UAs and their context as the column labels; the cells show how many checked which box on the test
14:54:19 [SteveZ]
EE: the tests will have metadata that will indicate if special device characteristics (e.g., 9dpi displays, letter paper, ...) to run the test. These will appear when test is selected for execution.
14:55:16 [SteveZ]
PlH: prior to running a series of tests, it is desirable to have the set of requirements for all the tests in the series.
14:57:07 [SteveZ]
SZ: The groups defined by the WG should avoid having conflicting requirements in the series
14:57:44 [SteveZ]
PL: there will be a Skip button on the test to allow it to be skipped because the special requirements for the test may not be met.
14:58:20 [SteveZ]
EE: the goal is to write the test so that they are DPI independent
14:59:51 [SteveZ]
EE: the goal is also to be font independent, but some tests may require the use of a standard set of public usable fonts.
15:00:22 [SteveZ]
EE: the tests require a blank user stylesheet.
15:02:30 [SteveZ]
PL: we should create one or more test that test the assumptions for the test suite
15:03:00 [SteveZ]
PlH: what does "full color" mean to the average user?
15:03:49 [SteveZ]
PlH: I would like for other groups in the Interaction Domain to be able to use this test harness
15:06:34 [SteveZ]
SZ: can I use the test harness in automatic mode, for example to do regression testing against stored bit maps
15:07:34 [SteveZ]
EE: not using the harness, but the test suite is in CVS and it can be pulled and used for anything consistent with the license.
15:09:15 [SteveZ]
DB: in Mozilla, we have tests that have to pieces of HTML that must either render to the same bit map or to two different bit maps
15:10:09 [SteveZ]
EE: the test are designed without reference rendering; the tester should read the instructions and determine the correctness of the results
15:10:32 [SteveZ]
EE: it would be possible to accept reference renderings, however.
15:11:11 [SteveZ]
JD: note that with text renderings are rarely, if ever, the same among browsers
15:13:06 [SteveZ]
PL: I would like to see Implementation Reports generated from the test harness results
15:13:49 [plh-css];%20charset=iso-8859-1
15:13:49 [SteveZ]
SZ: when implementations are generally passing most tests, it would be useful to have the subset of tests that are still being failed
15:16:09 [SteveZ]
PlH: suggests that the above dashboard was useful for WSDL WG and might suggest ways to organize the CSS results (which are more complex)
15:16:58 [SteveZ]
PlH: one thing that was nice was to see what test assertion(s) were being failed in a given test run
15:19:28 [plh-css]
-> CSS test harness
15:19:34 [SteveZ]
JD and EE: there is a bunch of build scripts that build the metadata and other stuff for the test harness which grabs the data from the build process
15:20:57 [SteveZ]
EE: one of the reasons for having a user friendly test harness is to allow volunteers to do some of the testing for this.
15:22:34 [sylvaing]
sylvaing has joined #css
15:22:50 [SteveZ]
HL: I would like to have a large page with a collection of tests in a group, perhaps using IFrames, that I can scroll thru to see the failures myself
15:23:15 [SteveZ]
EE: HL wants a page like DG did for selectors
15:24:17 [SteveZ]
EE: one can add a script to build such an IFrame test; please do not change any of the existing scripts
15:24:52 [fantasai]
15:25:40 [SteveZ]
EE: this is the index by section of all the tests in the CSS2.1 test suite
15:26:29 [SteveZ]
RI: some of the I18N tests have changed recently; are you picking these up?
15:27:28 [SteveZ]
EE: Ira has been working on picking up such tests, but he may be leaving soon.
15:28:02 [fantasai]
15:28:10 [fantasai]
15:28:28 [SteveZ]
EE: for tests that arrive in the wrong format, a repository will be created to store them until that can be adapted to the system
15:29:19 [SteveZ]
PlH: could I18N write there tests for the above test harness?
15:30:47 [SteveZ]
RI: right now, constructing the test in format suitable is extra work beyond what is being done by I18N (which often means me)
15:31:19 [SteveZ]
RI; the I18N format has multiple test per page and has additional info beyond that used by CSS
15:32:49 [SteveZ]
EE: there is a relatively simple template for the test; the scripts build the harness code around that test file matching that template
15:33:00 [fantasai]
15:33:12 [fantasai]
15:33:23 [SteveZ]
The above is the URL for the test template
15:34:10 [SteveZ]
RI: how does one indicate what the requirements for running a given test are?
15:34:34 [SteveZ]
RI: e.g., a special font must be loaded
15:36:26 [SteveZ]
EE: uncommon requirements should be in the test instructions, but this will not be pulled out in a requirements summary
15:38:09 [SteveZ]
RI: Why not have a "requirements" metatag that takes a string to be displayed as part of the requirements display
15:39:20 [SteveZ]
SZ: how could we internationalize such requirements strings?
15:40:22 [SteveZ]
EE: the other requirements that are common to many cases are coded as flags that can be internationalized
15:42:24 [SteveZ]
EE: the build process generates three versions of each test, 1. mostly a copy of the test, 2. an HTML file and 3. an HTML print file.
15:43:59 [SteveZ]
Supporting the test harnes and the test for langauges other than English is out of scope
15:44:17 [SteveZ]
15:45:17 [r12a]
example of what PLH is saying:
15:46:47 [SteveZ]
EE: agreed that files must be served with specific headers, but that is out of scope for the test harness
15:47:50 [SteveZ]
RI: I have a bunch of test for character encoding that require specific headers
15:47:51 [fantasai]
EE: The test harness doesn't contain or serve up the tests. They need to be hosted elsewhere. The test harness just links to them
15:48:18 [fantasai]
EE: If you have special hosting requirements, you need to set those up where the tests are hosted. There's no interaction there with the test harness
15:48:50 [SteveZ]
EE: the test harness just links to the test; therefore it is the server on which the tests are stored that is responsible for generating the correct headers
15:49:54 [fantasai]
15:50:45 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #css
15:51:28 [SteveZ]
The above URL is a message about the BiDi test that were being converted for the test harness
15:52:56 [SteveZ]
That completes this topic
15:55:04 [glazou]
dsinger: we just adjourned the meeting for the day !
15:55:36 [SteveZ]
The meeting is now adjouned for the day
16:10:01 [anne]
anne has left #css
16:31:35 [alexmog]
alexmog has joined #css
16:50:54 [jason_cranfordtea]
jason_cranfordtea has left #css
17:53:21 [jdaggett]
jdaggett has joined #css
19:07:44 [sylvaing]
sylvaing has joined #css
20:57:08 [arronei]
arronei has joined #CSS
21:37:38 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #css
21:47:29 [plinss_]
plinss_ has joined #css
21:55:43 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
22:06:49 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #css
22:14:57 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
22:32:12 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
23:13:31 [melinda]
melinda has joined #CSS