15:49:29 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #CSS
15:49:29 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/08/19-CSS-irc
15:49:40 <plinss> zakim, this will be style
15:49:40 <Zakim> ok, plinss; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 11 minutes
15:57:25 <oyvinds> oyvinds has joined #css
15:57:49 <Zakim> Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
15:57:56 <Zakim> +plinss
15:58:01 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
15:58:10 <sylvaing> Zakim, Microsoft has sylvaing
15:58:10 <Zakim> +sylvaing; got it
15:59:07 <bradk> bradk has joined #css
16:00:44 <Zakim> +bradk
16:01:22 <Zakim> +CesarAcebal
16:02:02 <Zakim> +??P9
16:02:36 <ChrisL> ChrisL has joined #css
16:02:39 <Zakim> +Bert
16:03:36 <Zakim> +ChrisL
16:04:46 <ChrisL> zakim, who is here?
16:04:46 <Zakim> On the phone I see plinss, [Microsoft], bradk, CesarAcebal, ??P9, Bert, ChrisL
16:04:49 <Zakim> [Microsoft] has sylvaing
16:04:49 <Zakim> On IRC I see ChrisL, bradk, oyvinds, RRSAgent, Zakim, sylvaing, shepazu, dbaron, Lachy, anne2, karl, CesarAcebal, Hixie, krijnh, plinss, fantasai, Bert, trackbot
16:06:10 <Zakim> +[Mozilla]
16:06:41 <dbaron> Zakim, [Mozilla] has dbaron
16:06:44 <Zakim> +dbaron; got it
16:07:12 <Zakim> +??P18
16:07:31 <dbaron> Zakim, ??P18 is howcome
16:07:31 <Zakim> +howcome; got it
16:09:31 <hyatt> hyatt has joined #css
16:09:42 <fantasai> ScribeNick: fantasai
16:10:01 <Zakim> +hyatt
16:10:22 <fantasai> Bert: I'd like to add Cesar as co-editor of Template module
16:10:49 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Cesar accepted as co-editor of Template module
16:11:08 <fantasai> Topic: CSS2.1 Issues
16:11:13 <sylvaing> Zakim, [Microsoft] has arronei
16:11:13 <Zakim> +arronei; got it
16:11:24 <plinss> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Jul/0025.html
16:11:55 <fantasai> Issue 128
16:12:09 <fantasai> Bert: I've looked at this when working on the Box module, and did write that section more carefully there
16:12:10 <Bert> http://www.w3.org/Style/Group/css3-src/css3-box/Overview.html#run-in-boxes
16:12:23 <fantasai> Bert: We're talking about block level with exceptions, e.g. block-level but not floating
16:13:13 <fantasai> Bert: For issue 2, I think 'follows' is defined, but is not defined in the way we need... in Chapter 3 elements and following elements are defined
16:13:26 <fantasai> Bert: But here we need "immediately following". So that's a bug in the definition
16:13:29 <ChrisL> +1 to 'immediately following'
16:14:24 <fantasai> ACTION: Bert Come up with exact wording for CSS2.1 Issue 128
16:14:25 <trackbot> Created ACTION-172 - Come up with exact wording for CSS2.1 Issue 128 [on Bert Bos - due 2009-08-26].
16:14:45 <fantasai> ChrisL: The last part is, I think, talking about tree order rather than rendering order (in any case this needs clarification)
16:15:09 <fantasai> ChrisL: "first child" would be more precise than "starts with"
16:15:57 <fantasai> Peter: You said you have clarifications that address the first issue, but he's pointing out different behavior in different browsers.
16:16:43 <fantasai> fantasai thinks Bert should come up with a proposal and then we can talk about it
16:17:31 <fantasai> Hyatt: I would prefer Boris's suggestion
16:17:44 <fantasai> ChrisL: That means IE has to change
16:18:49 <fantasai> Issue 115 (?)
16:18:49 <plinss> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Mar/0282.html
16:19:16 <fantasai> dbaron: I think fantasai's text has a serious bug in it in that it says every element has clear even if it's not next to floats
16:19:40 <fantasai> dbaron: I sent a message to the list a week ago, but it wasn't clear so I sent another one just now
16:20:19 <dbaron> s/says every element has clear/says every element with 'clear' inhibits margin collapsing/
16:20:20 <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Aug/0386.html
16:24:11 <fantasai> dbaron: I don't think there's an issue here
16:24:25 <fantasai> s/I don't think/I'm not sure/
16:24:42 <fantasai> fantasai: There is, there are cases where you need clearance to be zero and still be clearance.
16:24:56 <fantasai> fantasai: Anton pointed out that the spec in some places assumes zero clearance is no clearance
16:25:08 <fantasai> ACTION: dbaron figure out what he wants to do about this
16:25:08 <trackbot> Created ACTION-173 - Figure out what he wants to do about this [on David Baron - due 2009-08-26].
16:26:33 <fantasai> Topic: Border-image/box-shadow
16:26:50 <fantasai> ChrisL: Last time we discussed I present a proposal
16:27:09 <fantasai> ChrisL: It was rejected, and there was discussion of a border-shadow proposal
16:27:40 <fantasai> ChrisL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Jul/0176.html
16:27:50 <fantasai> s/ChrisL: //
16:32:13 <fantasai> ChrisL: But I don't understand what happened sicne then
16:32:24 <fantasai> fantasai points Chris to the minutes
16:35:16 <Zakim> -howcome
16:37:17 <ChrisL> s/rejected/rejected on two grounds, desire for a real box shaddow and the assertion that shadows could be precomputed/
16:37:31 <fantasai> People repeat their objections to various issues within this issue, and fantasai tells everybody to go read her email and post a reply if they object to her argument there
16:38:03 <fantasai> People discuss issues
16:38:10 <fantasai> fantasai fails to minute them.
16:38:47 <fantasai> Brad: If we're going to have an alpha-based shadow in the future, that should be a separate thing from box-shadow which doesn't follow the shape of the dashes
16:39:18 <fantasai> ChrisL: I understand that point, but I think people are going to be surprised when box-shadow doesn't follow the shape of the border image
16:39:31 <fantasai> ChrisL: You could specify it that way, but it's not very satisfactory
16:39:52 <fantasai> Hyatt: I would prefer if we came up with a resolution that used border-image
16:40:07 <fantasai> Hyatt: People use it in a way that visually alters the shape of the box
16:40:28 <fantasai> ChrisL: And if you curve the corners, it follows the curve
16:41:25 <fantasai> ChrisL: People will expect it to work for border-image, too
16:41:41 <fantasai> Hyatt: I think either we should follow the border-image, or suppress the shadow
16:41:49 <fantasai> Hyatt: Making a box shape doesn't make sense
16:41:54 <fantasai> Brad: Why don't we shadow everything?
16:42:00 <fantasai> Hyatt: We have that, it's a separate feature
16:42:29 <fantasai> Hyatt: ... SVG shadows
16:42:46 <fantasai> ChrisL: That's how I implemented these
16:43:07 <fantasai> Brad: Once we have SVG shadows, then anything we do for border-image just becomes redundant
16:43:31 <fantasai> Hyatt: For box-shadow, my concern is what the author expects.
16:44:00 <fantasai> Hyatt: I think there's really only two options: either shadow the border-image or suppress it
16:44:11 <fantasai> Hyatt: I don't see what the problem is with doing shadows on border-image
16:44:26 <fantasai> Hyatt: Is it just that we can't come to agreement on how it works?
16:44:52 <fantasai> fantasai: not that's not the problem
16:45:08 <fantasai> Brad: We could add switches to controll what the shadow gets applied to
16:45:12 <fantasai> fantasai: we can add switches later
16:45:34 <fantasai> Hyatt: If you really want a separate border-shadow then we can add that and copy the box-shadow syntax
16:47:24 <fantasai> ...
16:47:43 <fantasai> Hyatt: If we have a box-shadow, then it tries to do this filled shadow effect where it's drawn outside the box
16:47:53 <fantasai> Hyatt: A border-shadow effect would shadow whatever's drawn for the border
16:48:07 <fantasai> Peter: Does border-shadow really change the shape of the box?
16:48:12 <fantasai> Hyatt: People expect it to
16:48:25 <fantasai> Hyatt: It looks like they change the shape of the box, but it's kinda fake
16:51:32 <fantasai> Bert: I don't want to have a non-continuous border change the shape of the box. I still want the box to be rectangular.
16:52:11 <fantasai> Hyatt: Most of our use of border-image is to round things
16:52:38 <fantasai> Brad: I think using border-image for interesting dotted patterns will be as interesting as using it for changing the shape of the box
16:52:53 <fantasai> Hyatt: It's going to be used for a lot of things. Any case where the built-in borders aren't good enough
16:53:36 <fantasai> ChrisL: So you're saying people want this ... ?
16:54:13 <ChrisL> s/this/this immediately/
16:54:29 <fantasai> Hyatt: Feature requests we've gotten: 1. do border-shadow, which is just a property like box-shadow and text-shadow that would exactly shadow the border drawing
16:54:41 <Zakim> -bradk
16:54:42 <fantasai> Hyatt: 2. A full-blown shadow property, that would shadow everything drawn inside the element
16:54:46 <Zakim> +bradk
16:54:53 <fantasai> Hyatt: 3. Wanting to shadow pieces of SVG.
16:55:03 <fantasai> ChrisL: You can do that already with the filter property
16:55:21 <fantasai> ChrisL: The latest draft is adding some syntactic sugar for common effects
16:55:32 <fantasai> ChrisL: I believe that's already implemented in WebKit, actually
16:58:09 <fantasai> ChrisL: If we go ahead and do a border-shadow property, then I'd like the box-shadow property to be only affected by the box, not by the border-image
16:58:20 <fantasai> ChrisL: You'll only get a rectangular shadow
16:58:34 <fantasai> ChrisL: It's not what people want. It's just clear and simple.
16:58:46 <fantasai> Hyatt: The argument for suppressing the box-shadow instead of just drawing a rectangle
16:59:14 <fantasai> Hyatt: Is that if the image don't load you show the border with a shadow
16:59:20 <fantasai> Hyatt: I'm fine with just rendering the rectangular shadow
16:59:24 <Zakim> -bradk
16:59:25 <fantasai> Hyatt: I think that's what we currently do
17:00:37 <fantasai> Hyatt: I think it's an important point that border-image doesn't change the shape of the box
17:00:40 <sylvaing> sylvaing has joined #css
17:03:00 <bradk> is the call over?
17:03:08 <Bert> No, not quite
17:03:32 <Bert> (But you're right that it's the top of the hour...)
17:04:45 <bradk> "the conference is restricted at this time", so I can't rejoin the call, and I'm missing whatever else is being discussed.
17:05:02 <fantasai> Peter: we're over our time, still no conclusion
17:05:15 <fantasai> Peter: let's pick this up again next week
17:05:16 <Zakim> -ChrisL
17:05:18 <Zakim> -hyatt
17:05:18 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
17:05:19 <Zakim> -[Mozilla]
17:05:20 <Bert> We're just repeating, to be as clearas possible. No conclusions...
17:05:20 <Zakim> -plinss
17:05:22 <Zakim> -CesarAcebal
17:05:23 <Zakim> -??P9
17:05:26 <Zakim> -Bert
17:05:27 <Zakim> Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
17:05:29 <Zakim> Attendees were plinss, sylvaing, bradk, CesarAcebal, Bert, ChrisL, dbaron, howcome, hyatt, arronei
17:05:31 <bradk> OK, thanks
17:05:34 <fantasai> yes, just repeating ourselves over and over and over and over and over
17:06:00 <hyatt> in the case of border-image i guess i'm just fine with everything,  which isn't helpful for coming to a conclusion :)
17:06:05 <fantasai> heh
17:06:20 <hyatt> i could suppress, draw a normal shadow, or draw a fancy shadow
17:06:23 <hyatt> don't really care
17:07:00 <fantasai> Perhaps we should assign some homework. Everybody go read my message, brad's response, and the minutes, and write one paragraph about what you think
17:07:12 <fantasai> Most people weren't talking
17:07:14 <bradk> If we think we can quickly create alpha-based drop shadows, and either restrict them to borders or not, then why don't we just do that, and have THAT suppress box-shadow?
17:07:25 <fantasai> ?
17:08:12 <bradk> As a separate property, I mean.
17:08:25 <fantasai> bradk: you mean, if 'border-shadow' is in effect, 'box-shadow' gets suppressed?
17:08:41 <bradk> Yes.
17:08:59 <fantasai> bradk: why is that useful?
17:10:10 <bradk> It seems like that would be coming in the future anyway. Then, if some want to suppress box-shadow when there is border-image, they can just create a border-shadow with a .0001& opacity.
17:11:02 <fantasai> bradk: that would suppress even when there wasn't a border-image
17:11:47 <bradk> or maybe instead of border-shadow, it is "drop-shadow: <box-shadow-properties>, border-only;"
17:12:01 <bradk> Hmm. Oh, yeah.
17:12:13 <fantasai> bradk: or maybe we can just add keywords to box-shadow later
17:12:28 <sylvaing> seconds that, fwiw
17:12:32 <fantasai> bradk: or that, yeah
17:12:38 <sylvaing> i.e. adding kw to box-shadow
17:12:50 <hyatt> i don't know how roc feels, but for me doing something great for border-image and box-shadow was just in the category of "well this might be cool"
17:13:00 <hyatt> i don't really feel strongly about it
17:13:03 <fantasai> hyatt: probably the same
17:13:18 <bradk> drop-shadow suppresses border-shadow, which suppresses box-shadow?
17:13:32 <fantasai> no, that would be so confusing
17:13:34 <fantasai> heh
17:13:34 <hyatt> at the top of webkit's paintBoxShadow method long ago i put:
17:13:35 <hyatt> "FIXME: Deal with border-image.  Would be great to use border-image as a mask."
17:13:42 <hyatt> and that's the extent of it :)
17:14:05 <fantasai> bradk: sorry, I misinterpreted what you typed
17:14:17 <fantasai> bradk: if we're adding keywords then I think we should just do that to box-shadow itself
17:14:25 <fantasai> bradk: and we can do that later, we don't have to do it now
17:15:04 <fantasai> hyatt: I think it's a good idea. I'd only want to suppress the shadows if it turns out to be difficult implementation-wise
17:15:15 <fantasai> hyatt: and since you and roc don't think so, that's not a concern right now
17:15:24 <bradk> "box-shadow: <box-shadow-properties>, supress-if-there-is-a-border-image;"?
17:15:52 <fantasai> bradk: how about
17:16:03 <fantasai>   border-image: ... shadowed image ...;
17:16:06 <fantasai>   box-shadow: none;
17:16:10 <hyatt> fantasai: opaque padding box unioned with border-image shape and drawn as a mask
17:16:15 <fantasai> @media (images-disabled) {
17:16:17 <hyatt> will look good in some circumstances but really lousy in many others
17:16:19 <fantasai>   box-shadow: something; 
17:16:19 <fantasai> }
17:16:43 <hyatt> like the diamond pattern in bert's original draft for example
17:16:48 <fantasai> hyatt: and shadows drawin in the image will look good in some circumstances but really lousy in many others
17:17:04 <hyatt> you'd have these little holes in between the right interior edges of the diamonds and the padding box
17:17:05 <hyatt> in the shadow
17:17:17 <hyatt> fantasai: true
17:17:18 <fantasai> hyatt: the diamond pattern in Bert's original example draft would work if you filled in the area between the diamonds and the padding edge
17:17:28 <fantasai> hyatt: it would /not/ work if you had to draw the shadows inside the image
17:17:40 <fantasai> hyatt: they'd get sliced up wrong
17:17:47 <hyatt> fantasai: right... so would need an algorithm that could specify that the space between the diamonds and padding edge gets filled
17:17:50 <fantasai> hyatt: feel free to try it :) bradk too
17:17:54 <bradk> I'd be OK with @media(no-images), I think.
17:17:55 <fantasai> hyatt: that's edge detection
17:17:56 <hyatt> i'm not quite sure how to specify that
17:18:06 <fantasai> hyatt: that's not something we really want to get into imo
17:18:22 <hyatt> yeah having to grovel around to build an actual shape
17:18:25 <hyatt> would yield the best results
17:18:26 <hyatt> but is also hard
17:18:50 <fantasai> bradk: I think  that'll cover a lot more ground than trying to work fallback into border-image+box-shadow
17:19:31 <bradk> Would it work if images were supported but not yet loaded?
17:19:52 <fantasai> bradk: hmmm, that's a tough one. probably not
17:20:11 <fantasai> bradk: for that you need media queries on a per-element basis
17:20:16 <fantasai> bradk: which we don't have, obviously
17:21:14 <bradk> OK, got to go. Bye!
17:21:23 <fantasai> bye!
17:24:22 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #css
17:41:17 <fantasai> sylvaing: that or a discussion for when glazou gets back
17:41:50 <sylvaing> fantasai: not sure I follow the glazou dependency :)
17:42:14 <fantasai> he's sometimes able to sort out messy discussions like this :)
17:42:35 <fantasai> I would like to go for last call before the TPAC
17:42:36 <sylvaing> granted. he does drive with a firmer hand.
17:42:55 <fantasai> TPAC is a long ways away, and I want this spec done by the end of the year
17:42:55 <Bert> Fun: let's bring crayons and water colors to the ftf and draw borders! :-)
17:42:59 <fantasai> Yay!
17:43:04 <sylvaing> that'd be totally approved
17:43:13 <fantasai> if we finish borders discussion, we can draw gradients instead :P
17:43:37 <sylvaing> that was another one I was going to suggest for TPAC
17:44:00 <fantasai> he's effectively editing the spec, we should make him co-editor for css3-images :)
17:44:08 <sylvaing> we should !
17:44:16 <fantasai> Bert: how goes the administrivia?
17:44:22 <sylvaing> tab got his email
17:44:32 <fantasai> cool
17:44:40 <sylvaing> he was all happy about this this morning on #whatwg. minutes before the conf call in fact
17:44:40 <Bert> He filled the form, it's now under review by Mauro.
17:45:27 <sylvaing> excellent
17:45:28 <Bert> He is already IE for HTML, so I don't see what Mauro can find against him. Nothing changed in Tab's situation since then.
17:45:52 <sylvaing> didn't know he was IE for HTML
17:46:00 <Bert> Which means that probably early next week he can officially join.
17:46:12 <sylvaing> but given the quality of his participation there, that certainly makes sense
17:47:08 <fantasai> sylvaing: HTML's IE status is different, it is self-invited
17:47:25 <fantasai> sylvaing: you don't qualify, though, because you work for MSFT :P
17:47:46 <sylvaing> I won't always...
17:48:01 <sylvaing> or am i tainted for life ?
17:48:25 <Bert> I prefer that join as rep of a big company, though. I need the fees to be able to travel again :-)
17:48:32 <fantasai> lol
17:48:51 <sylvaing> you need to get the fantasai travel guide !
17:49:16 <fantasai> "W3C Travel on a Student Budget"
17:49:17 <fantasai> :P
17:51:20 <fantasai> sylvaing: you can be an IE if you're not working for a W3C-eligible company
17:51:48 <sylvaing> when i grow up then
17:52:03 <hyatt> fantasai: roc is on vacation, so i haven't made any progress on gradients
17:52:17 <hyatt> fantasai: the discussion on them has been crazy
17:52:26 <fantasai> hyatt: yeah
17:52:26 <hyatt> i can't keep up with it
17:52:41 <fantasai> hyatt: Tab's doing most of the work for you
17:53:01 <fantasai> hyatt: he's effectively editing a spec on it as he goes through the discussions
17:53:28 <fantasai> hyatt: so you and roc can basically just review the spec once it stabilizes
17:53:32 <fantasai> hyatt: mostly it's syntax discussions
17:53:47 <sylvaing> yeah tab is doing good work there
17:54:36 <sylvaing> between Brad's border image stuff and Tab's gradient work, we've been lucky lately.
17:54:49 <fantasai> yeah :) good stuff
17:57:25 <fantasai> I need to be more patient.
17:57:26 <Bert> Not so sure about that. I would prefer we spent the energy on vertical text, hyphenation, centering (esp. horizontal, but vertical is also important), tabs/leaders, footnotes, intrinsic heights and a few other things that really ought to have been working long ago...
17:58:21 <fantasai> Bert: Those are much harder topics.
17:59:09 <sylvaing> well, bert, as someone who works on a browser that doesn't do rounded corners, border images, shadows, gradients and the like, i can tell you i can't argue with the priorities :)
17:59:12 <Bert> No doubt, but any other typsettting system can do them, while the Web still can't :-(
17:59:27 <sylvaing> and yes, definitely harder too.
17:59:46 <fantasai> Bert: if we had as many people who understood intrinsic sizes as gradients... 
18:00:13 <fantasai> Bert: I think it's mainly just you and dbaron (and probably someone from the IE team, though I don't know who)
18:00:29 <sylvaing> and that someone sure isn't me...
18:01:03 <sylvaing> but there is someone here who is very good with that
18:01:09 <fantasai> Bert: howcome has a proposal for leaders, should be extensible to tabs, no?
18:01:19 <fantasai> Bert: and his footnotes proposal is quite good imho
18:02:36 <Bert> I think we abandoned general tabs in favour of Håkon's simplified proposal. That's OK, it can do most things and the rest will have to be faked with floats again. The problem is that even the simplified stuff isn't progressing :-(
18:03:11 <fantasai> Bert: It's not progressing in browsers
18:03:23 <fantasai> Bert: which is why it doesn't get talked about much here
18:03:35 <fantasai> Bert: the companies that are working on it are YesLogic and AntennaHouse
18:03:39 <fantasai> Bert: neither of which sends reps
18:04:41 <annevk> annevk has joined #css
18:06:04 <fantasai> RRSAgent: make logs public
18:06:26 <sylvaing> mmmm...css3 values and units says angles are for aural stylesheets ?
18:06:36 <fantasai> that's an error
18:06:39 <annevk> ooh, my apologies, I was out for food with my dad
18:06:41 <fantasai> it was reported awhile ago
18:06:47 <fantasai> annevk: you didn't miss much
18:06:55 <fantasai> annevk: just a rehash of the border-image box-shadow arguments
18:07:07 <annevk> I see, hope you guys had fun with that :)
18:07:13 <annevk> (and girl ;) )
18:07:14 <sylvaing> annevk: fantasai was fierce :)
18:07:26 <fantasai> it's not good
18:07:30 <fantasai> should be more patient
18:07:32 <fantasai> grr
18:07:51 <fantasai> annevk: I consider "you guys" to be gender-neutral
18:07:55 <sylvaing> well, i appreciated it because it clarified a bunch of things for me. but i can totally see how others would see it as a waste of time
18:08:03 <fantasai> annevk: so you're good :)
18:08:17 <Bert> Angles are to specify the elevation of the sound source above the horizon
18:08:27 <fantasai> yes, but they're used for more than that in css3
18:08:31 <annevk> :)
18:08:38 <Bert> So yes, they caome from aural style sheets origianlly.
18:19:29 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #css
18:22:13 <sylvaing> Bert: thanks !
18:22:44 <Bert> Sylvain, for what?
18:38:18 <Zakim> Zakim has left #CSS
19:04:04 <sylvaing> sylvaing has joined #css
19:31:13 <MikeSmith> MikeSmith has joined #css
20:27:49 <sylvaing> sylvaing has joined #css
20:55:44 <billyjackass> billyjackass has joined #css
21:20:06 <krijnh> krijnh has joined #css
21:29:16 <krijnh> krijnh has joined #css
21:42:39 <krijnh> krijnh has joined #css
21:49:16 <krijnh> krijnh has joined #css
22:04:07 <arronei> arronei has joined #CSS
23:12:15 <sylvaing> sylvaing has joined #css
23:57:15 <hyatt> hyatt has joined #css