I have a vastly different perspective of where our priorities should be

<glazou> eh

<dsinger> Hi

<dsinger> On the bus as usual, using irc client ok the iPhone

<glazou> np

<dsinger> Hm, who is aaas?

<glazou> dsinger: I have no idea who it is

<sylvaing> 1.206 is sylvaing

<glazou> ah ok

<glazou> hy sylvaing

<glazou> hi even

the passcode from Zakim does not work

<dsinger> P26 is?

<glazou> elika

<glazou> same thing here

<glazou> ScribeNick: annevk

F2F

DG: Peter did not get budget approval
... I'm still unsure myself
... I will know by the end of the week

<szilles> coming soon to a phone near you

<dsinger> I have a conflict for the f2f, sorry

DG: CL will be chair if I cannot make it [was that serious?]
... that was serious
... anything else?

[silence]

Apple CSS proposals

DG: I saw only Bert's e-mail
... please state your opinion

CL: was not clear about the transform-style and backface culling. where would a back geometry come from?

DG: at this point we are more interested in whether we should publish these documents or not

DB: I'm in favor of releasing them

<dsinger> Steve also had a comment

<dbaron> ... though they may progress at different rates after this point.

SZ: I'm clearly not in favor
... it is in direct conflict with the stuff we discussed earlier
... it seemed to be that discussion we had in Beijing went in one direction and the Apple proposal went in another
... how transforms affect formatting

BB: there is a small note in the transforms draft about affecting layout

HWL: what is the concern here?

SZ: the essence is that the approach outlined in the Apple draft is in direct conflict with use cases we outlined earlier
... we ought to agree on what problem we try to solve before we set out a solution

DS: The documents have been out there for a long time in the wild and could have been discussed for months so putting the breaks on them now is not nice

DG: we have these proposals on the table for a long time
... there has been plenty of time for comments
... important comments will still have to be answered by the editors

SZ: the record of the previous discussion predated the publication of the Apple documents
... I'm concerned about 2D Transforms
... which were recently split out

DB: SZ is talking about transforms that affect layout if my memory serves me. That's the harder part. It might be better to get the easier part out there first.
... I definitely support publication and might support working on transforms that affect layout as well.

HWL: I prefer transforms that do not affect layout
... can we address your concern with a note?

SZ: there is a note in there
... the note would require turning around because the normal default would be the one that affects layout (normal flow)
... if a note is added that this only works for relative positioning that might work better
... not sure if that is acceptable to Apple

DG: lets have a straw poll

SZ: to simplify your life, I'm happy to raise a Formal Objection...

DB: do we really want transforms to do vertical text? I see them as orthogonal

<dsinger> sure, or the 45 degree case

CL: you could use them for table headings and such, not Japanese text layout

<ChrisL> I think, if it covered layout, it could be used for rotated or stacked text - in table headings for example

DG: it seems you ask for a clarification, not something that should block

<dsinger> it sounds like we need a paragraph at the top, stating this as an open issue, and it might (?) cause technical changes

SZ: it's not a clarification, it's a complete switch

<dsinger> architectural changes

DS: just to get this straight, you are worrying about the architectural issue?

SZ: yes

HWL: we should just mark it as an issue

SZ: the issue is what triggers which behavior
... as specified, putting transforms on makes them not affect layout; that's the issue

HWL: which part of the document is this in?

SZ: the document does not consider this case

<dsinger> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-2d-transforms/

<ChrisL> "Transforms should perhaps be allowed to affect layout. Using the position property to do this seems to be the logical choice, but there are lots of questions about how this would work."

DS: maybe we should change that paragraph to make it clear this is an architectural issue

SZ: I think I can have a paragraph for next week's meeting

HWL: why should we allow transforms to affect layout?

SZ: to rotate text

DB: it is pretty complicated

SZ: you don't want writing-mode to also deal with rotated text
... if you overload writing-mode it gets really complicated

<dsinger> "Resolving this issue might result in architectural changes to the rest of this document; this is not (merely) a missing technical detail." ??

<ChrisL> q to say actually its not clear that this would you 45 degree stacked table headers

DG: what can we do to make it publishable?
... removing the section?

SZ: no

DS: would the sentence above work?

SZ: no... I guess I would sort of point to the use case document on www-style ...

[...]

<dsinger> uri coming?

<szilles> Use cases for transformation: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Oct/0209

SZ: my request is that people look at the use cases
... I cannot attend next week's meeting unfortunately

DG: the use cases are clear

HWL: should the use cases be in the spec?

[discussion about the use cases]

DG: we have two choices now: work this out or drop it
... we still have 3d transforms, animations and transitions

<sylvaing> can we publish the properties implemented by Apple, Mozilla and Safari and allay SZ's objection ?

SZ: I do not understand your two choices; we could discuss it at the F2F

DS: I cannot be at the F2F

DB: it has been discussed a lot on the mailing list too; I do not think everything needs to be decided during F2F meetings

CL: it is a modal thing, you do not have to have both

<dsinger> and both cases are worth pursuing

DS: SZ and I can work out a paragraph
... to address this issue

transitions, animations, 3d transforms

DG: objections from BB to animations and 3d transforms

AvK: In favor of publishing

DG: In favor of publishing everything
... it seems there is consensus for these documents except that SZ and DS need to work out a paragraph

SZ: the animation stuff does not seem to fit with SMIL

DG: again it's only a WD
... it's probably going to be changed drastically based on comments

SZ: ok

DG: BB can you summarize your comments?

BB: transitions I like after we've done more important stuff
... 2d transforms is fine as well, again no priority
... 3d transforms is outside my world, I don't want to think about that at all
... animations seems really way too complex
... this WD with this syntax is not worth publishing
... I agree with SZ that 2D transforms that affect layout are better

DS: we did settle on the new charter, right?

Several: yes

<ChrisL> charter http://www.w3.org/Style/2008/css-charter.html linked from http://www.w3.org/Member/Mail/

DG: most people agree with publishing the new documents; 2 comments on 2D Transforms; and BB is not in favor of publishing one document
... DS and SZ work out the issue and we're going to publish these four documents as soon as possible

<dbaron> (Note that when I said I think they'll progress at different rates... my guess would be fastest-to-slowest as 2D transforms, transitions, animations, 3D transforms)

DG: at a conference people were really happy with transforms by the way

EE: I would like to discuss Selectors

Selectors

<dbaron> The hypertext CG seems like the wrong place to discuss that.

DG: We discussed this during the HCG and the Unicode Normalization issue needs to be resolved first.
... The i18n WG will come up with something in two weeks time

EE: I do not want to wait for the i18n WG, XML WG, etc.

<ChrisL> a coordination issue between two wgs seems a reasonable thing for a coordination group to discuss

EE: I do not want to wait three months

DB: I would probably raise a Formal Objection to any change to the Selectors document that involves Unicode Normalization
... on the grounds that it is way too complicated

<dbaron> to any solution to the unicode normalization issue that involves a change to the selectors document

DG: We raised an architectural issue to the HCG and TAG and asked the experts what they think about this.
... They do their best to reply in a reasonable time

<ChrisL> they said two weeks

DB: I think that having the discussion on a private HCG mailing list is the wrong place to do this

DG: That's a separate issue and we cannot discuss that here

SZ: I'm confused. I think two separate discussions are going on.
... 1) Do we need to do something about Unicode Normalization in CSS? I think the general feeling is "yes". 2) Can we figure out the Selectors issue without figuring out what to do with CSS as a whole?
... I'm not sure what the i18n WG is tasked to do
... I agree with DB that a solution that just affects Selectors is not the right answer to the broader question
... In Tokyo we might be able to reach a resolution.

EE: I think this involves a lot of WGs

DB: This involves ECMA TC39, HTML WG, and maybe the XML Core WG
... I think what should be up for discussion is a different stage in the processing model

SZ: I agree with DB
... When does Unicode Normalization gets done

DS: 1) Can you do simple comparison because normalization has been done. 2) Does the comparison need to be more complicated?

SZ: This blocks because at LC you are supposed to be rid of issues

DG: I'm fine with waiting because somebody is dealing with this

CL: Either you discuss the proposed solution. If it doesn't come, you can move ahead anyway and not address it.

[that might not be entirely accurate, sorry]

SZ: One technique we used where we can't agree is to move the solution to Selectors N+1 and say in Selectors N that is not defined in the specification.
... I propose that as a fallback in case we cannot reach a solution in two weeks

DG: I do not want to release the document now and modify it based on feedback from the i18n WG later.

EE: I can wait two weeks, but not five months; we have dependencies

[e.g. Selectors API, XBL 2.0, ...]

<fantasai> We need to update the draft

DB: I think we should still go to LC
... in two weeks

[agreement]

[}]

<dsinger> bye

<ChrisL> You can look at http://www.w3.org/2009/02/18-css-minutes.html,text to get a plain-text version

there are no resolutions

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/[scribe missed ... something about transform-origin and "back"]/was not clear about the transform-style and backface culling. where would a back geometry come from?/
Succeeded: s/Avk/AvK/
Succeeded: s/documents/comments/
Succeeded: s/TC39/ECMA TC39/
Succeeded: s/depencies/dependencies/
Found ScribeNick: annevk
Inferring Scribes: annevk
Default Present: dsinger, glazou, +1.206.324.aaaa, sylvaing, Bert, annevk, David_Baron, fantasai, ChrisL, SteveZ, howcome
Present: _dsinger glazou +1.206.324.aaaa sylvaing Bert annevk David_Baron fantasai ChrisL SteveZ howcome

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

Got date from IRC log name: 18 Feb 2009
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/02/18-css-minutes.html
People with action items: 

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