See also: IRC log
<glazou> fantasai: you join the call?
<scribe> Scribe: Bert
<scribe> ScribeNick: Bert
David baron sent some replies.
David: We might want to define issue 4, indeed. We would need test cases.
<sylvaing> issue 4a
David: Specifically 4a.
... I already pointed out it was udnefiend 10 years ago and the group decided to leave it 5 years ago. But we might change our mind.
Bert: Defined at some point, yes, but needed for 2.1?
David: Maybe not necessary, but we won't get interoperability.
Daniel: So we confirm that we leave it undefined?
(Discussion about what 2004 decision meant...)
David explains the "root" in that decision.
David: We don't have good
... An element inside a top-aligned is not a root and is not considered for the alignment of that root.
<fantasai> ScribeNick: fantasai
<Bert> Steve: For XSL I said top was considered first and then the bottom-aligned elements would align to what was the resulting bottom after the rest was aligned.
Steve: XSL, you align all the
things that are neither top nor bottom-aligned
... Then you align things that are top top, then bottom
fantasai: Should we just copy XSL's definition?
David: We could use some test cases to see what browsers do
fantasai: Didn't Anton post a test case?
David: Some browsers might use always top, or always bottom, or the first thing, or the last thing.
ACTION Steve come up with wider set of testcases
<trackbot> Created ACTION-144 - Come up with wider set of testcases [on Steve Zilles - due 2009-05-20].
Daniel: So we will return to 4a
after analyzing testcases
... What abotu 4b?
David: We should come up with proposals for these
Daniel: That's ok, but who will come up with the proposals?
<szilles> You align all the things that are neither top or bottom aligned; then next align the top items to the top of the first result and finally align the bottom aligned items to the bottom of the first two results
Steve: That should be either David or I
fantasai: I didn't have any proposals for this one, just filed the issue
fantasai: I folded Issue 4 and Issue 10 from that message into 117, they are all related and multiple bits might be solved by one proposal
Daniel: Ok, Steve will take care of this. Next issue
David: I don't like using slash as a delimiter when the item before it is optional
Daniel: Thoughts on this?
fantasai: Even the poster decided he didn't like this proposal, so I don't think we should adopt it.
Daniel: Was there anything to extract from this email?
Bert: The first issue about the
grammar, I made an error, it's my fault.
... The others, he doesn't like the way we write it... and I don't like it either, the handling of errors is not very clear
... I'm not sure we want to change that
... The last one, the fonts one, we still have an open issue. We should wait for that before we decide anything new on fonts
... I think John was going to come up with a proposal for that.
Daniel: So we have one error that
you are going to fix, or have already fixed
... Two clarifications requested for the prose?
Bert: Number 2 in his mail is about ignoring until the end of the block. The way it's written now says "up to and including the end of the block", which is wrong
(we don't want to ignore the } )
Bert: For number 3, I don't think we change anything there. I don't like the way it's written either, but I don't want to try to rewrite it. It's maybe not nicely written, but no real need to change.
<dbaron> "up to (but not including) the end of the block"
dbaron, that's not sufficient
dbaron, reread the paragraph, you need to rearrange some text for that to work
<dbaron> I can't find the paragraph
it's in Bert's mail
Search for "Maybe change from"
David: I think I prefer Bert's first proposal
fantasai: I would be ok with the
first proposal if s/up to and including the next
... but I guess that makes it ambiguous
<dbaron> it might be clearer if we say that it's the next semicolon not in a block
several prefer Bert's original proposal
fantasai: I can live with that if we add a comma before the second 'or'
RESOLUTION: Bert's first proposal accepted with comma before second or
<dbaron> mine are not ready
<sylvaing> not ready either
Nobody's ready with CSS2.1 issues
Daniel: I think it's too late in process to add these to css3-selectors
RESOLUTION: Deferred to future specs
Daniel: Please make sure to book
your hotels and flights
... And add topics to agenda http://wiki.csswg.org/planning/sophia-2009
<Bert> trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/than/then/ Succeeded: s/against/things that are top/ Found Scribe: Bert Inferring ScribeNick: Bert Found ScribeNick: Bert Found ScribeNick: fantasai ScribeNicks: Bert, fantasai Default Present: +1.858.216.aaaa, plinss, glazou, Bert, sylvaing, David_Baron, SteveZ, CesarAcebal, fantasai, alexmog Present: +1.858.216.aaaa plinss glazou Bert sylvaing David_Baron SteveZ CesarAcebal fantasai alexmog 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: 13 May 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/05/13-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]