15:41:56 RRSAgent has joined #CSS 15:41:56 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/07/22-CSS-irc 15:42:02 Zakim, this will be Style 15:42:03 ok, glazou; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 18 minutes 15:51:45 oyvinds has joined #css 15:57:44 Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started 15:57:51 +plinss 15:58:25 +Brad_Kemper 15:58:39 ChrisL has joined #css 16:00:17 +[Mozilla] 16:00:56 Zakim, [Mozilla] has David_Baron 16:00:56 +David_Baron; got it 16:00:58 ah 16:00:58 +glazou 16:01:20 +[Microsoft] 16:01:24 +ChrisL 16:02:31 rrsagent, here 16:02:31 See http://www.w3.org/2009/07/22-CSS-irc#T16-02-31 16:02:44 rrsagent, make logs public 16:03:06 arronei has joined #CSS 16:03:08 sgalineau has joined #css 16:03:09 +Bert 16:03:11 Zakim, [Microsoft] has sylvaing 16:03:11 +sylvaing; got it 16:03:37 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2009JulSep/0025.html 16:06:26 Zakim, [Microsoft] has arronei 16:06:26 +arronei; got it 16:06:33 zakim, who is here? 16:06:33 On the phone I see plinss, Brad_Kemper, [Mozilla], glazou, [Microsoft], ChrisL, Bert 16:06:35 [Microsoft] has arronei 16:06:36 On IRC I see sgalineau, arronei, ChrisL, oyvinds, RRSAgent, glazou, Zakim, bradk, anne2, krijnh, karl, myakura, dbaron, shepazu, jdaggett, Lachy, fantasai, trackbot, Hixie, Bert, 16:06:38 [Mozilla] has David_Baron 16:06:39 ... plinss 16:08:25 +??P7 16:08:38 Zakim, ??P7 is fantasai 16:08:38 +fantasai; got it 16:09:47 Scribe: ChrisL 16:09:49 szilles has joined #css 16:10:02 Chair: Peter 16:10:18 hmmm, my internet connection seems to have soured so as to make voip unusable... 16:10:32 Meeting: CSS WG telcon 16:10:38 +SteveZ 16:10:55 dbaron: : same thing here, lot of noise 16:11:15 zakim, list attendees 16:11:15 As of this point the attendees have been plinss, Brad_Kemper, David_Baron, glazou, ChrisL, Bert, sylvaing, arronei, fantasai, SteveZ 16:11:26 Topic: CSS3 Background 16:12:38 -glazou 16:12:47 CL: I sent in a proposal http://www.w3.org/2009/07/B-and-B/border-image-shadow-combine.html 16:13:09 +glazou 16:15:51 I think we should post this proposal to www-style and try to get some feedback. 16:16:02 BB: Prefer the 4.2 opaque box solution 16:16:34 BK: prefer the one with shaddows all round 16:16:45 CL: Thats actually two shadows, one inset 16:17:08 DG: Prefer the one with the alpha chanel. 16:17:16 ... often asked hhow to do that 16:17:43 BK: Anyone that can crwate an image can also create a drop shadow 16:18:12 DG: I have a counter example, want the user agent to be able to use the alpha channel 16:18:24 DG: counter-example, making an app and want to add shadows through the app 16:19:16 DB: Leaning towards not including the shadow, because it may often not be quite right 16:19:36 DB: I think I might lean towards agreeing with BK, because this feels like the type of feature where we spend a lot of work implementing something that doesn't quite do what authors want, so nobody uses it. 16:19:58 DB: Prefer to disable box-shadow 16:20:18 CL: shadow incoporated into border-image doesn't work with the slicing 16:20:43 CL: I have an example not linked in which puts a drop shadow on the source ; the slicing is then wrong 16:21:07 DB: yes, can't get that with the author making their own shadow in the source image 16:21:42 DG: Shadows not aligned with circles, so slicing will mess up the shadow. Woudl need two images, one for the shadow and one for the image itself 16:21:57 SZ: If images distort the shadow distorts differently 16:22:15 DG: Web designers want to apply the effects dynamically 16:22:58 CL: Could animate the drop shadow. Lighting effect on mouse position for example 16:23:06 example of ChrisL's dynamic shadow update based on mouse position with text-shadow: § ACID3 16:23:06 § Evaluate score for current plan 16:23:06 § >ACID3::003-025 16:23:06 DOMCanvas 16:23:09 doh 16:23:15 http://www.zachstronaut.com/lab/text-shadow-box/text-shadow-box.html 16:23:22 BK: Agree its powerful, but should be a separate property that works on all images 16:23:45 sz: how about renaming the property border-shadow instead of box-shadow 16:24:30 EE: everyone is using this property already, so its hard to change even with vendor prefixes 16:25:30 DB: people will have to change anyway 16:25:35 CL: Creating a version of the image with drop-shadow and then slicing and tiling it was really gross 16:26:14 EE: In applications the spacing is critical 16:26:24 ScribeNick: fantasai 16:26:28 DB; Pages not useing it due to patchy browser support 16:26:59 Chris: I had a section in the document that shows the result with a solid box 16:27:24 Chris: to show that it's the same as with drop-shadow on a solid border 16:27:44 Brad: Already starting to think about what it currently does with box-shadow 16:27:54 Brad: It doesn't follow the alpha-image of the actual border 16:27:59 Brad: not using alpha channels 16:28:18 CL: alpha-image of a solid rectangle is a solid rectangle 16:28:24 Brad: But it's not if it's dots or dashes 16:28:35 Brad: For this image seems like you can't slice it very well 16:28:57 Brad: But for a lot of things I would use, e.g. for fancy corners on a straight-edged box 16:29:13 Brad: would be able to use the images for the shadow 16:29:22 Chris: I think when you actually try it, it won't work 16:29:37 Peter: I'm sure there are some images where it would look right, but a lot where it wouldn't 16:30:42 can someone post the lamp demo page ? 16:31:14 http://www.bradclicks.com/cssplay/border-image/Thinking_Outside_The_Box.html 16:31:26 Brad: Either way you are going to be restricted 16:31:33 s/DB; Pages not useing it due to patchy browser support/DB: I think the reason the change would cause more breakage for iPhone (etc.) applications than Web pages is that Web pages aren't using it because not all browsers support it yet 16:31:43 Brad: E.g. in Chris's example you can't create complex effects 16:32:16 Brad: Restriction on my way is that you can't animate it and certain types of images where you have a big corner and things narrowing as they come towards the corner.. that would be something you can't do with my way 16:32:44 Steve: There's nothing that prevents someone from /not/ adding the drop-shadow and putting it in the image 16:32:58 Brad: But then you can't use drop-shadow as a fallback 16:33:11 Fantasai: I think that's less important than being able to get these cases right 16:35:30 EE: Maybe we could use media queries in the future to detect images being turned off. But the fallback issue sis not enough to block using drop shadows on border images 16:37:11 EE: We have a large chunk of use cases that can only be achieved by including the shadow in the image, and also a large chunk of use cases that can only be achieved by dynamically applying the border 16:38:38 Peter: I think box-shadow and border-image are separate things and I don't think they should be combined like this. 16:38:48 Peter: I think we should have a border-shadow property instead. 16:39:12 Peter: Put a switch on it to get different behaviors. 16:39:22 so then the dashed borders would also behave like this? 16:39:35 Steve: I like the solution that has border-shadow apply to both regular borders and image borders 16:39:50 Steve: and box-shadow does what it does now 16:40:08 Brad: ... where box-shadow is not drawn when there's a border-image. 16:41:01 Chris: So are we going to move forward with border-shadow now, or reserve that for a future version? 16:41:51 Chris: Are we adding this now? 16:42:30 Chris: Just copy the box-shadow property definition and tweak it 16:42:38 Chris: spread for arbitrary images is not defined 16:42:57 Brad: We also talked about having switches in the property, might delay CR 16:43:16 i'm hapy to add a border-shadow to the spec, and add an example that has a dashed border 16:44:09 dbaron: We also need to get this discussion on www-style 16:44:25 fantasai: I want to make sure roc and hyatt agree with whatever we decide to do here 16:44:36 sz: update this first to be a border-shadow 16:45:05 s/this/Chris's proposal document/ 16:45:21 Brad: They can also read the minutes of this meeting, too, right? 16:45:47 fantasai: Why not put the switch on box-shadow? 16:45:57 fantasai: You wouldn't use both properties at the same time anyway 16:46:32 action: chris to revise the border-image-and-box-shadow proposal to make a border-shadow proposal, them make public 16:46:32 Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - chris 16:46:32 Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ChrisWilson, clilley) 16:46:41 Steve: In your examples, the shadow didn't look like it was on the box, it looked like it was on the border 16:46:44 action: lilley to revise the border-image-and-box-shadow proposal to make a border-shadow proposal, them make public 16:46:44 Created ACTION-165 - Revise the border-image-and-box-shadow proposal to make a border-shadow proposal, them make public [on Chris Lilley - due 2009-07-29]. 16:47:18 Steve: I would prefer Chris write it up as a separate property and then suggest that it could be merged 16:47:29 sz: note at the end that this could be done with a switch on box-shadow 16:48:02 ACTION: Chris write up border-shadow proposal 16:48:02 Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Chris 16:48:02 Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ChrisWilson, clilley) 16:48:13 ACTION: clilley write up border-shadow proposal 16:48:13 Created ACTION-166 - Write up border-shadow proposal [on Chris Lilley - due 2009-07-29]. 16:48:46 I can revise the proposal and make it public for Friday 16:48:54 Topic; flexbox and css3 images 16:48:56 Topic: Publication status of flexbox and css3-images 16:49:03 Bert: Will be officially published tomorrow 16:49:05 bb: they wil be published tomorrow 16:49:27 ... fixed a few markup errors, so please do a cvs update before further edits 16:49:29 Bert: longer answer is, I had to fix markup errors in the drafts, so next time you update do cvs update first 16:50:03 ScribeNick: ChrisL 16:50:32 Topic: Percentage corners 16:50:50 EE: Add this or defer? Already added in Mozilla 16:51:03 ... and they will be removing the vendor prefix soon 16:51:09 ... prefer to defer it therefore 16:51:28 DB: Need to remember to remove it when we drop the border prefix 16:51:39 PL: This has been implemented since the 890s* 16:51:52 s/890/*90/ 16:52:07 DB: Don't reacll seeing actual uses of it 16:52:22 BK; Does the prefix form continue to be supported? 16:52:29 DB: probably not 16:52:57 PL: Whats the problem with having percentage values in there? 16:52:59 s/therefore/as we decided earlier, but wondering if it's possible for Mozilla to remove at this point or if we have to define this so it doesn't conflict later on/ 16:53:24 EE: There are two differing interpretations of what a percentage means 16:53:37 BK: Suggested on www-style how to handle them 16:53:50 ... one is based on width, two is based on the relevant side 16:54:07 DB; Agree with Hakon and say they are always based on width or height 16:54:22 ... if you want a particular shape you will use particular units 16:55:03 BK: How do you get ovals? 16:55:47 DB; One alsways based on width the other based on height 16:55:56 s/one/one radius/ 16:56:05 SZ: So its based on the border thickness? 16:56:11 DB: No the size of the box 16:56:24 so you'd get a circle with border-radius: 50% 16:56:27 or an ellipse 16:56:31 depending on the shape of the box 16:56:41 Brad: If you want quarter-circle corners that are not ellipses, then you don't use percentages 16:56:49 Brad: 10% height is different from 10% width 16:56:51 BK: So if you want quarter circle corners, you just can't use percentages? 16:57:05 Peter: The only thing you couldn't get that way is a percentage-based curve that is always circular 16:57:52 PL: If there is only one dimension specified, make it the width. Then you can get both behaviours 16:58:02 ... always get a circular border 16:58:07 Peter: I kinda like Brad's idea that the percentage is always based on the width if you only specify one percentage 16:59:01 EE: Normally if there are two values and you can drip them, its duplicated, but does not give different behaviour 16:59:12 ... so its not like other shorthands 16:59:17 s/drip them/drop one/ 16:59:33 SZ; Its duplicating the computed value, not the specified one 16:59:58 Peter: Another way to get that would be to have a width unit. 0.5width 17:00:01 PL; Or make new units like a width unit. ).5W 17:00:09 s/)/0/ 17:00:38 ... width 50% is the same as 0.5W 17:00:51 ... could be introduced down the road 17:01:16 EE; opera also has percentages implemented 17:01:42 BB; Any other case where you want percentages, apart from elliptical boxes? 17:01:52 s/;/:/g 17:01:54 (if this is about borders, we might have removed those due to compat issues) 17:01:59 -Brad_Kemper 17:02:02 (supporting percentages there, that is) 17:02:16 anne2, yes, this is about borders 17:02:17 (sites were using it expecting it not to work) 17:02:21 i believe i've seen border-radius used to make a circle 17:02:25 PL; Mac buttons with rounded ends irrespective of button length 17:02:31 anne2, huh? 17:03:01 fantasai, what is unclear? 17:03:20 Bert gives an example of resizing his window so the box resizes, and that causes the padding to not be enough and text overlaps the border 17:03:26 ... 17:03:48 SZ; If I make the corner a constant size and make the box bigger the corner becomes more square. Don't want that 17:04:07 anne2, why they would want to use it expecting it not to work 17:04:11 s/;/:/g 17:04:35 EE; Anne says percent border radius might have been removed from Opera 17:04:43 SZ; not been in a released build anyway 17:04:55 s/;/:/g 17:05:16 SZ: Like Brad and Peter's suggestion with the single value 17:05:54 fantasai, dunno, the Web is a fun place 17:06:00 fantasai, you should know, you've done QA :) 17:06:23 PL: Not hearing consensus, out of time 17:06:25 fantasai, i don't expect the browser i use to work :) 17:06:26 fantasai, I guess they were just trying something, didn't work in IE, but didn't remove it 17:06:27 adjourned 17:06:31 -SteveZ 17:06:33 rrsagent, make minutes 17:06:33 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/07/22-CSS-minutes.html ChrisL 17:06:34 -[Mozilla] 17:06:35 -Bert 17:06:38 -plinss 17:06:39 -glazou 17:06:42 -fantasai 17:06:45 -ChrisL 17:07:07 dbaron, what do you think of the # of values solution? 17:07:25 fantasai, I think it's ugly but I can live with it. 17:11:46 disconnecting the lone participant, [Microsoft], in Style_CSS FP()12:00PM 17:11:49 Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended 17:11:50 Attendees were plinss, Brad_Kemper, David_Baron, glazou, ChrisL, Bert, sylvaing, arronei, fantasai, SteveZ 17:14:59 sylvaing has joined #css 17:32:39 dsinger has joined #css 17:41:57 anne2 has joined #css 18:12:51 dsinger has joined #css 18:17:50 dsinger has joined #css 19:11:18 Zakim has left #CSS 19:12:18 shepazu has joined #css 19:39:44 dsinger has joined #css 20:32:37 hyatt has joined #css 20:32:49 dbaron: yt? 20:32:54 hyatt, yep 20:33:05 dbaron: do you know any reason why background-clip doesn't support content-box? 20:33:12 our implementation in webkit does 20:33:30 it's not clear to me why content-box is not in the list at http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-background/#background-clip 20:33:38 I think it was just because nobody thought of a use case 20:33:56 just seems kind of odd when you compare with background-origin 20:33:57 I don't think there would be opposition to putting it back if you feel strongly, though. 20:34:07 fantasai: ping 20:34:09 It does seem a little odd, and it makes handling the shorthand a little odd too. 20:34:17 But I'm sort of ok with either way. 20:34:21 i'd like it put back in 20:34:28 just simplifies things imo 20:34:33 if the parsing of those two properties is the same 20:41:30 hyatt: pong 20:42:13 hyatt: We left it out because you almost never want to clip to the content-box 20:42:15 fantasai: pretty please on putting content-box back in to background-clip? :) 20:42:39 hyatt: makes the shorthand a mess if you have to explicitly undo background-clip: content-box when you want to set the origin 20:43:14 hyatt: give me a really convincing reason and I'll consider reopening the issue, but we've discussed it a few times already 20:43:21 eh i don't care that much 20:43:24 mostly concerned about breakage 20:43:32 since we support this now 20:43:39 hyatt: what would you use it for? 20:43:52 no idea, just had it for completeness 20:43:59 hyatt: content-box clipping is almost always too close to the content, you pretty much always want some padding around the content 20:44:07 we just matched origin and clip 20:44:08 hyatt: I'd expect less than 1% usage 20:44:29 yeah the scary part is as i update our syntax i have to make the background shorthand obey the finalized versions 20:44:33 that's what i'm most scared of 20:44:47 the background-clip property itself i'm not worried about 20:44:52 since dropping the prefix lets me change that 20:44:57 but the shorthand is scary 20:45:03 yeah 20:45:15 I wouldn't worry too much about breakage for background-clip: content-box 20:45:35 I can't think of a single reason why you'd want to use it, and nobody's come up with one whenever we've discussed it 20:45:39 :) 20:46:14 ok i'll just add separate parsing paths for both 20:46:35 iirc the shorthand only takes one -box value 20:46:55 cool 20:47:10 oh you can't specify clip in the shorthand any more! 20:47:14 yikes 20:47:19 i didn't notice that 20:48:30 i don't understand that change? 20:48:43 why would clip not be in the shorthand if it can apply in every layer of multiple bgs 20:49:29 oh.If ‘background-origin’ is present and its value matches a possible value for ‘background-clip’ then it also sets ‘background-clip’ to that value 20:49:34 i see. 20:49:38 tricksy. 20:50:15 fantasai: so the shorthand parsing would certainly be simplified if background-clip could take content-box 20:50:31 then you don't have the oddity of being unable to set background-clip from the shorthand when background-origin is content-box 20:53:13 if we made background: content-box; set background-clip: content-box as well as background-origin: content-box, nobody would ever use it 20:53:41 you might want to position your image wrt the content box, but you almost never want to clip it to that box 20:54:19 i'm approaching this more from a parsing perspective without caring about use cases 20:54:28 just from a pure syntax perspective it's odd to me that a property can't be set 20:54:34 in the shorthand 20:54:54 there's so much stuff in the shorthand already 20:54:56 sgalineau has joined #css 20:55:20 more special case parsing code it is then 20:55:22 heh 20:55:27 This is one less thing to remember. You usually want the origin and cliprect to match anyway (except when it's content-box) 21:13:51 MikeSmith has joined #css 21:38:27 fantasai: if background-attachment is not local 21:38:42 fantasai: i assume background-origin of padding-box just uses a fictional padding box that doesnt care about scrolling 21:39:00 term padding-box is kind of funny in that case heh 21:40:00 background-attachment not local is the 2.1 case 21:40:11 right 21:40:13 why do we need a fictional padding box? 21:40:23 asking how that interacts with background-clip/origin of padding-box 21:40:35 well let's say you have an overflow:auto div 21:40:38 and the border box is 300x300 21:40:41 but the padding box scrolls 21:40:44 so it is 1000x1000 21:41:13 then the background is attached to the viewport 21:41:17 so it doesn't scroll 21:41:20 in the !local case 21:41:29 it's just fixed to the border, as it were 21:41:31 yes, but what does that mean when used with clip/origin of padding/content 21:41:50 well the viewport is inside the paddng box 21:41:58 so padding-box is not an issue 21:42:03 origin content-box might be 21:42:19 hm 21:42:24 ok it's obvious you don't really use the padding-box in 2.1 21:42:31 it's just a synthetic padding-box 21:42:32 inside the border 21:42:38 totally ignoring the scrolling 21:42:43 which is fine but not really spelled out 21:43:02 ok, yeah, so you have two conceptual padding boxes 21:43:05 the one inside the viewport 21:43:10 and the one outside the viewport 21:43:15 they coincide when there's no scrolling 21:43:18 right 21:43:37 it makes sense here to use the outer padding-box when you're attached to the border 21:43:45 and the inner padding box when you're attached to the content (i.e. local) 21:43:52 right 21:44:02 i think the spec should probably clarify this 21:44:12 content-box has the same issue 21:44:14 ok 21:44:15 yeah 21:44:17 two conceptual content boxes 21:44:19 border-box has the opposite issue 21:44:28 right which you addressed by stating you could just clip 21:44:28 and the spec says what to do there 21:45:16 yeah, I guess you have to create a conceptual content box that's fixed to the border-box 21:45:22 and position wrt that 21:45:35 good catch 21:45:39 I'll add some text for it 22:01:03 ok background-clip, background-origin in webkit now with prefixes dropped and final syntax 22:01:05 woot 22:01:52 fantasai: pedantic nitpick 22:01:53 "The difference between ‘scroll’ and ‘local’ is only visible when the element has a scrolling mechanism: " 22:02:03 technically you can set the scrollLeft/Top of overflow:hidden element 22:02:05 s 22:02:17 there is no visible scrolling mechanism necessarily in that case 22:02:25 but probably not worth bothering with correcting i guess 22:03:29 actually maybe it is worth correcting 22:03:43 since basically overflow:hidden + background-attachment:local will need to clip to padding box 22:04:44 it's kind of weird that if the contents of the element don't scroll that you might not clip 22:04:53 but then if you suddenly do scroll that you'd suddenly start clipping 22:05:00 i'm thinking of overflow:auto 22:05:12 "The UA may, however, treat the ‘border-box’ value of ‘background-clip’ as ‘padding-box’ in cases where ‘background-attachment’ is ‘local’ and the contents of the element scroll." 22:05:33 seems like even if the contents of the element don't scroll you may just want to always use padding-box 22:05:45 since otherwise as scrollbars come and go your backgroudn would jump in and out of the border 22:06:20 hmm, ok 22:06:49 I have to go run some errands, I'll be back later. I'll read the scrollback, though, so you can keep leaving comments :) 22:06:56 k 22:07:03 thanks for the comments though! 22:07:03 i think i'd just say if overflow != visible 22:07:10 that border-box becomes padding-box 22:07:16 k 22:07:17 when background attachment is local 22:17:21 anne2 has joined #css 22:17:32 box-shadow inset confuses me 22:17:42 the examples in the draft show the shadow drawing over the background 22:17:47 but how can that be 22:17:56 shadows draw behind borders and backgrounds... 22:18:04 is the stacking order flipped for inset shadows? 22:18:10 if so, where does it say that 22:18:42 ah nvm i see it 22:18:43 "and the inner shadows of an element are drawn immediately above the background of that element (below the borders and border image, if any)."