16:45:37 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #CSS
16:45:37 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/12/09-CSS-irc
16:45:42 <glazou> Zakim, this will be Style
16:45:42 <Zakim> ok, glazou; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 15 minutes
16:46:23 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #css
16:47:00 <dsinger> dsinger has left #css
16:48:54 <glazou> RRSAgent, start
16:49:01 <glazou> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:53:39 <bradk> bradk has joined #css
16:56:04 <Zakim> Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
16:56:11 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
16:56:58 <oyvind> oyvind has joined #css
16:57:19 <smfr> smfr has joined #css
16:58:12 <Zakim> + +1.617.650.aaaa
16:58:15 <Zakim> +glazou
16:58:31 <Zakim> +plinss
16:58:50 <dethbakin> dethbakin has joined #css
16:58:53 <glazou> Zakim, aaaa is dethbakin 
16:58:53 <Zakim> +dethbakin; got it
16:59:00 <dethbakin> hi all!
16:59:05 <glazou> hi :)
16:59:28 <ChrisL> ChrisL has joined #css
17:00:16 <Zakim> +smfr
17:01:18 <Zakim> +Bert
17:02:44 <smfr> sounds like someone is unravelling the christmas lights
17:02:49 <glazou> that deserves a bit of belgian chocolate
17:02:53 <glazou> yum
17:02:58 <CesarAcebal> CesarAcebal has joined #css
17:03:15 <glazou> ROFL
17:03:25 <Zakim> +bradk
17:03:35 <Zakim> +David_Baron
17:03:48 <Zakim> +??P3
17:04:03 <Zakim> +ChrisL
17:04:04 <glazou> Zakim, P3 is CesarAcebal 
17:04:04 <Zakim> sorry, glazou, I do not recognize a party named 'P3'
17:04:21 <glazou> Zakim, +??P3 is CesarAcebal 
17:04:21 <Zakim> sorry, glazou, I do not recognize a party named '+??P3'
17:04:30 <glazou> Zakim, you're so painful sometimes
17:04:30 <Zakim> I don't understand 'you're so painful sometimes', glazou
17:04:45 <CesarAcebal> :)
17:04:57 <TabAtkins> Grar, joining call now.
17:05:07 <bradk> I tried using Gogle Voice to call, but then the bridge would not take my 78953 code (even though I manually entered it after being connected. Anyone know what that is about?
17:05:16 <plinss> zakim, ??P3 is CesarAcebal
17:05:16 <Zakim> +CesarAcebal; got it
17:05:40 <Zakim> + +02165aabb
17:06:33 <Zakim> +TabAtkins
17:06:54 <TabAtkins> bradk: I've been having trouble with google voice and the conferences too.
17:07:02 <TabAtkins> bradk: It wouldn't let me in this week or the last.
17:07:37 <glazou> bradk: that seems to highly depend at what speed the code is composed
17:07:46 <glazou> happens to me too all the time with my SIP client
17:07:59 <glazou> plinss, plinss_ : shoot ?
17:08:20 <bradk> So maybe I should hold down the keys longer...
17:08:20 <TabAtkins> ScribeNick: TabAtkins
17:08:37 <TabAtkins> plinss: Anything else on the agenda? (silence) no.
17:08:44 <howcome> howcome has joined #css
17:08:48 <TabAtkins> plinss: First item, dbaron objected to publishing css3-color
17:08:55 <TabAtkins> plinss: David, can you summarize?
17:09:20 <TabAtkins> dbaron: The main problem is that I'm not sure which draft you want to publish.  There are still a bunch of lc comments i need to deal with.
17:09:32 <TabAtkins> dbaron: Beyond that, I'd like to do what we decided at the ftf and keep color-correction in.
17:09:41 <Zakim> + +1.650.275.aacc
17:09:50 <Zakim> -bradk
17:09:53 <TabAtkins> dbaron: But the main thing is that there's no real draft to publish, and if we're not keeping color-correction in we need to figure out what we're going to say
17:09:54 <glazou> who just joined ?
17:10:00 <bradk> me
17:10:02 <glazou> ok
17:10:06 <bradk> Zakim, aacc is me
17:10:06 <Zakim> +bradk; got it
17:10:07 <glazou> hi ChrisL btw
17:10:24 <ChrisL> hi
17:10:58 <TabAtkins> ChrisL: If there are unresolved comments, then resolving them before publishing is prudent.
17:11:33 <TabAtkins> ChrisL: In terms of color-correction, there are no implementations that use that syntax.  There are impls that use color management on tagged images, but those aren't addressed by specs right now.
17:11:34 <smfr> that was dethbakin 
17:11:46 <TabAtkins> dethbakin: There's an experimental impl in webkit
17:12:13 <TabAtkins> bert: It seems that the spec is complete and consistent right now.  It doesn't talk about images, but I don't see how that's necessary.  We can add that elsewhere to another module.
17:12:54 <TabAtkins> ChrisL: When earlier, when we dropped it, I said "That's a shame, all these impls are already color-managing."  They could implement the spec, but they haven't.  But now that webkit has an experimental impl, that says we should keep it in and hope for a second impl.
17:13:17 <ChrisL> So if webkit has one implementation, we should keep it in
17:13:34 <TabAtkins> Bert: I can't remember exactly what color-correction does, but I can only imagine one thing to do - respect colorspaces and treat untagged as srgb.
17:13:41 <TabAtkins> dethbakin: It also refers to css colors, frex.
17:13:49 <TabAtkins> Bert: But they should be in srgb anyway.
17:13:55 <ChrisL> The use case is for matching styled content with images
17:14:03 <TabAtkins> dethbakin: In practice,e that's not quite true in current browsers.
17:14:25 <TabAtkins> dbaron: The point of color-correction is to allow users to opt-in to color-correction until browsers can do that automatically for everyone.
17:14:37 <TabAtkins> Bert: But the default should still be srgb, as that's what it's been for 30 years.
17:14:47 <sylvaing> s/30 years/13 years
17:14:48 <TabAtkins> dethbakin: Afaik that's only in spec.
17:15:21 <TabAtkins> Bert: I'm getting more afraid; I think you want to change CSS 2.1 or further back?
17:15:50 <TabAtkins> dethbakin: I don't want to change specs at all.  I'm okay with it saying that they should be corrected to srgb, and so i'm fine to let authors turn that on per element.
17:15:55 <TabAtkins> bert: Why not just fix reality?
17:16:11 <TabAtkins> dethbakin: We can't fix that in Webkit, so we'd just have to go against spec.
17:16:29 <TabAtkins> ChrisL: It would be helpful to say why "fix reality" isn't feasible.  Is it just color maching with images?
17:16:42 <TabAtkins> dethbakin: There are images with video, but also images on the mac with matching to images.
17:16:44 <Zakim> +SteveZ
17:17:02 <TabAtkins> dbaron: Matching untagged images to CSS colors isn't a problem, but matching colors in plugins are an issue.
17:17:16 <Zakim> +fantasai
17:17:36 <dethbakin> The major issue for WebKit is performance. Enabling sRGB on the Mac all the time was a performance regression the last time we tested.
17:17:48 <TabAtkins> ChrisL: 2 issues being brought up.  1 is matching different colors together.  Images, video, and css colors.  They all need to match.  The issue is that video is not color-corrected.
17:18:02 <TabAtkins> ChrisL: It uses platform defaults.  If you want to match it, you have to manually correct to platform defualt.
17:18:11 <Zakim> -fantasai
17:18:21 <Zakim> -David_Baron
17:18:28 <TabAtkins> ChrisL: 2nd issue is performance.  If you have to do color correction it's slightly slower.
17:18:41 <TabAtkins> smfr: Actually maching plugins is a more widespread problem than matching video.
17:18:57 <TabAtkins> ChrisL: Yeah, and videos are usually done with plugins, so it means matching what flash does.
17:19:11 <TabAtkins> smfr: Distinction between <video> and plugins, so say "plugins" if you mean it.
17:19:19 <Zakim> +fantasai
17:19:50 <TabAtkins> ChrisL: Frex, the adobe svg plugin does do color management.  But video gets sent straight to the video chip so there's no opportunity for color correction.
17:20:01 <TabAtkins> szilles: So video and plugins are different?
17:20:10 <TabAtkins> ChrisL: Yes, and there are also plugins which manage and ones that don't.
17:20:39 <TabAtkins> ChrisL: There's a need to say on a per-element basis to say "this thing isn't color-managed" because it's more useful to match with someething else next to it, rather than get an exact color.
17:20:51 <TabAtkins> smfr: You're suggesting an opt-out that says no color management explicitly.
17:21:12 <TabAtkins> smfr: But that's what browsers do now, and if they switched to mass-managing to srgb there would be big problems.  It should be opt-in.
17:21:22 <Zakim> +[Mozilla]
17:21:29 <TabAtkins> Bert: The problem seems to be the mac.  That's a problem that should have been used long ago.
17:21:51 <TabAtkins> ChrisL: You get content that's done on a mac, but then when viewed on other platforms there are issues with it being too dark.
17:22:01 <TabAtkins> smfr: I think mac does gamma the same as pcs now.
17:22:10 <Zakim> - +02165aabb
17:22:16 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #css
17:22:25 <TabAtkins> smfr: Mac doesn't use srgb by default for rendering, it matches the display's default color space.  On windows i think srgb is the default color space for rendering
17:22:53 <TabAtkins> ChrisL: So, if you get 4 different macs with 4 different displays, they'll all display differently?
17:22:57 <Zakim> + +0472165aadd
17:23:06 <TabAtkins> smfr: They'll look the same because the mac knows the monitor's display profile.
17:23:22 <TabAtkins> ChrisL: So it's doing the right thing?  It's converting the colors to the display color space.
17:23:41 <TabAtkins> smfr: Yeah, srgb talks about the source color space, and then maps to the display's color space.
17:23:55 <TabAtkins> smfr: Kind of a historical thing that css colors aren't in srgb by default.
17:24:06 <TabAtkins> Bert: I think MacIE does it in srgb.
17:24:17 <TabAtkins> Bert: I remember that IE looked different from Safari.
17:24:43 <TabAtkins> smfr: We can't just throw a switch and start doing srgb for everything.
17:25:10 <TabAtkins> Bert: But it's apparently okay if you display colors differently between macs and other machines.  Why not just switch them?
17:25:34 <TabAtkins> smfr: Because if we did so Macs would suddenly have lots of color management issues.  Since there are lots of design people on Macs, it's a problem.
17:25:59 <TabAtkins> ChrisL: You can change the way you display images, and you can change the way you do css colors.  plugins are still the problem; flash just doesn't do it correctly.
17:26:16 <TabAtkins> Bert: So is adobe here?  Maybe we can change flash?
17:26:28 <TabAtkins> szilles: (laughter) I will investigate what flash thinks it's doing.
17:26:39 <TabAtkins> smfr: I don't even think flash has an api to tell the browser what colorspace it's in.
17:26:54 <TabAtkins> szilles: We know that if we *did* any change we'd need an api to know what colorspace it needs to use.
17:27:00 <TabAtkins> smfr: Seems like a good idea to start that discussion.
17:27:13 <TabAtkins> ChrisL: And it doesn't even need to be cross-platform, because the code that does it is platform-specific.
17:27:35 <TabAtkins> szilles: That only solves half the problem.  If the plugin is trying to match the video, there's still an issue because the video is going straight through without correction.
17:27:57 <TabAtkins> smfr: html5 video playback is under the browser's control, and should be able to be colormanaged if the browser can accept the perf hit.
17:28:06 <TabAtkins> szilles: I accept that, but what if the author doesn't ask for that?
17:28:25 <TabAtkins> szilles: I think we're stuck supporting the current world, which is what Simon says.
17:28:32 <ChrisL> and most video uses rec.709 primaries, which are the same as sRGB uses?
17:29:30 <TabAtkins> plinss: While this is useful and productive, it's not addressing the original topic.
17:29:40 <TabAtkins> ChrisL: It sorta is.  It's addressing what we can change, and therefor ewhat we can publish.
17:29:55 <TabAtkins> plinss: Previously we resolved to remove and publish to get it out the door.
17:30:13 <TabAtkins> dbaron: And before that we resolved to publish it *with* color-correction.  So we have resolutions to do both.
17:30:22 <TabAtkins> szilles: What's the problem with leaving out the color-correction propertiees?
17:30:34 <TabAtkins> ChrisL: The problem is that we're publishing something that webkit says they can't conform to.
17:30:47 <TabAtkins> dbaron: And that we have no conformant impls of.
17:31:32 <TabAtkins> szilles: [something about defualts being ccir601?]
17:31:45 <ChrisL> CCIR 601  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec._601
17:32:09 <Bert> (I don't think we ever decided to publish a CR *with* color-correction. We decided to add it to a WD, then later decided to take it out and publish a CR.)
17:32:21 <TabAtkins> smfr: So email from david says srgb matches rec 709.  rec 601 and 709 are equiv in transfer function and slightly different in primaries.
17:32:32 <TabAtkins> ChrisL: is 601 not the same as the old ntsc one that nobody uses?
17:32:39 <TabAtkins> smfr: Not sure.  Discuss later?
17:33:14 <TabAtkins> szilles: It (601?) claims to be the ubiquitous standard for professional equipment.
17:33:50 <TabAtkins> szilles: I find this discussion difficult to hold on the phone, but do think we should talk about this and get it out the door.
17:34:01 <TabAtkins> szilles: Was one option to go back to srgb and describe what happens in the world today?
17:34:32 <TabAtkins> ChrisL: Right, so 601 is ntsc and *nobody* uses that.  IN practice nobody uses it.
17:35:08 <TabAtkins> szilles: That doesn't necessary follow.  They may color-correct to 709 monitors.
17:35:20 <smfr> can the chair move things along?
17:35:39 <ChrisL> nobody uses *the NTSC primaries*. actual content is not produced using those primaries any more
17:35:51 <TabAtkins> glazou: I don't think we'll reach any resolution for this right now.  We still have a resolution to release or not.
17:36:12 <ChrisL> http://www.efg2.com/Lab/Graphics/Colors/Chromaticity.htm
17:36:15 <TabAtkins> Bert: It's a completely implemented spec, but if we don't have consensus we can't do it.
17:36:27 <TabAtkins> RESOLVED Dont' publish Color module as CR.
17:36:42 <TabAtkins> glazou: Next item is the "security of css selectors in case of injection of a style sheet".
17:36:52 <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-security/2009Dec/0051.html
17:36:53 <TabAtkins> fantasai: ON previous topic, what do I do with the snapshot?
17:37:11 <TabAtkins> fantasai: Delay it, drop color, add something else?
17:37:27 <fantasai> Ok, so what do we http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2009OctDec/0148.html
17:37:36 <TabAtkins> szilles: Is it clear that there's no solution to color that will prevent it from going to CR?
17:37:54 <TabAtkins> dbaron: I think there's a solution to take it to *P*R.  CR shouldn't be a problem.  Either way we need to address the LC comments.
17:38:18 <TabAtkins> szilles: We discovered we're not as far on color as we ethought, but it still seems worthwile to tie the snapshot to color.
17:38:35 <TabAtkins> fantasai: So yeah, we need to address the LC comments, but how much time will that take?  less than a week, or longer?
17:38:44 <TabAtkins> dbaron: Dunno, but I need some time, and I won't have any this week.
17:39:16 <glazou> fantasai: we heard nothing
17:39:22 <TabAtkins> fantasai: Is this color-correction thing going anywhere?  I don't know how I can go forward, and don't know how long I should wait.
17:39:36 <glazou> aaah seems to be my own phone
17:39:46 <TabAtkins> ChrisL: We need to have a discussion on the list with more details.  We're spinning wheels because we have not enough detail.
17:40:00 <dbaron> I'm ok with publishing css3-color without 'color-correction'
17:40:03 <TabAtkins> szilles: I was going to suggest a subcommittee with Chris, dbaron, maybe dsinger, and ocntinue this discussion.
17:40:14 <TabAtkins> fantasai: Okay.  Estimate on time?  1 month? 6 months? 2 years?
17:40:26 <TabAtkins> ChrisL: Probably more than a month, less than 6 months, to report back with solid data.
17:40:38 <TabAtkins> fantasai: So are we holding up the snapshot for that?
17:40:58 <TabAtkins> dbaron: I'm okay with advancing CSS3 color without color-correction, but we do need to address the lc comment.
17:41:08 <TabAtkins> fantasai: Okay.
17:41:27 <TabAtkins> dbaron: I think I can get to it within the next month.
17:41:51 <TabAtkins> fantasai: So when the LC comments are done we'll make the decision to publish as CR.
17:42:00 <TabAtkins> fantasai: /PR
17:42:21 <TabAtkins> glazou: Elika, your original question was about the snapshot.
17:42:45 <TabAtkins> fantasai: Yes.  If we're going to delay color for a month, that's fine.  But if we're going to hold it up longer than that, we need to evaluate whether we want to hold up the snapshot.
17:42:56 <ChrisL> SMPTE 170M reflects modern practice in the generation of NTSC signals and, in some respects, differs from the original NTSC specification published in 1953; notably in no longer using NTSC primaries and Illuminant C whitepoint
17:43:10 <TabAtkins> topic: css3 selectors and security
17:43:18 <TabAtkins> glazou: It's not just selectors, but also properties and values.
17:43:37 <TabAtkins> glazou: The thread was about the injection of external stylesheets with seamless iframes.
17:43:56 <TabAtkins> glazou: So if someone could inject and use attribute selectors, they could steal information.
17:44:08 <TabAtkins> glazou: Another isntance is using positioning or multiple backgrounds to phish.
17:44:26 <TabAtkins> glazou: I'm of the opinion that css isn't the problem here, its the insertion of it into third-party content.
17:44:42 <TabAtkins> sylvaing: My reading was that the attack surface was increased by css3-selectors.
17:45:09 <TabAtkins> sylvaing: All of these things are already issues, though.  So where's the extra attack surface?  In html5, or some combination with css selectors, or what?
17:46:01 <smfr> is the phone fading out for everyone, or just me?
17:46:11 <TabAtkins> It's only a problem with pages that are same-origin but not under the same control.
17:46:47 <Zakim> -ChrisL
17:46:58 <smfr> Zakim, mute me
17:46:58 <Zakim> smfr should now be muted
17:47:13 <howcome> howcome has joined #css
17:47:27 <ChrisL> yes, i heard the morse stuff too, then choppiness, then i was dropped
17:47:54 <dbaron> glazou, we heard you except 3 words in the middle
17:48:02 <glazou> I said a security attribute
17:48:10 <Zakim> +ChrisL
17:48:16 <glazou> making a <link> or <style> digest a stylesheet
17:48:27 <glazou> in  conformance with a given profile
17:48:43 <ChrisL> zakim, mute me
17:48:43 <Zakim> ChrisL should now be muted
17:48:45 <glazou> excluding attribute selectors and "harmful" properties could be a solution
17:48:54 <TabAtkins> TabAtkins: Would that be an attribute *on* the <link>/<style>?
17:49:34 <TabAtkins> TabAtkins: Because it's not an issue about you unwittingly using someone's else's malicious CSS, it's about them iframing you without your knowledge.
17:49:36 <glazou> guys, it's just impossible to continue a call this way
17:49:37 <glazou> IRC is better
17:49:37 <glazou> let's move to IRC
17:49:44 <glazou> allllooooo ? :-)
17:49:45 <Zakim> -ChrisL
17:50:45 <howcome> zakim, +0472165aadd is howcome
17:50:45 <Zakim> +howcome; got it
17:51:43 <TabAtkins> glazou: Yeah, on the <link>
17:52:01 <bradk> zakim, mute me
17:52:01 <Zakim> bradk should now be muted
17:52:16 <howcome> zakim, mute me
17:52:16 <Zakim> howcome should now be muted
17:52:33 <TabAtkins> TabAtkins: That wont' help then.  You don't have control over the <link> that's causing he problems.
17:52:52 <TabAtkins> Bert: We should just say that CSS isn't passed through iframes.
17:53:17 <glazou> do we want to send an official mail from WG about it ?
17:53:25 <glazou> saying we're aware of issues in CSS
17:53:35 <glazou> but issues are caused by security model of the web itself
17:53:45 <glazou> and we cannot do a lot about it from our end ?
17:54:00 <TabAtkins> I think we should.  Bandaid patching/restricting CSS here won't fix the underlying problem, which will just keep popping up with sites on the same origin but different owners.
17:54:13 <TabAtkins> And we're not introducing any new attack scenarios fundamentally.
17:54:14 <glazou> other opinions ?
17:54:20 <glazou> bert I can't hear you at all
17:54:24 <glazou> please user IRC
17:54:39 <glazou> IRC
17:54:41 <glazou> please
17:54:59 <Zakim> -plinss
17:55:07 <Bert> I think it's better for usability if a stytlke sheet is blocked completely or not at all, not individual features of it.
17:55:11 <Zakim> +plinss
17:55:29 <glazou> even if we have a security profile ?
17:55:40 <Zakim> -[Mozilla]
17:55:41 <TabAtkins> Agreed, Bert.  We cant' just identify particular bits of CSS without causing author confusion.
17:55:43 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
17:55:47 <Zakim> -TabAtkins
17:55:57 <glazou> wow the bridge disconnects everyone ?
17:56:00 <Zakim> -SteveZ
17:56:03 <sylvaing> i hung up
17:56:06 <glazou> ok, I'll prepare that mail then
17:56:06 <sylvaing> it was horrible
17:56:07 <dbaron> I hung up too
17:56:07 <glazou> ok
17:56:07 <szilles> me to
17:56:20 <glazou> I suggest to adjourn the meeting
17:56:24 <glazou> painful today because of phone
17:56:28 <Zakim> -dethbakin
17:56:30 <Zakim> -glazou
17:56:33 <Zakim> -howcome
17:56:34 <Zakim> -smfr
17:56:36 <Zakim> -bradk
17:56:41 <Zakim> -Bert
17:56:43 <glazou> we have only 4 minutes lefts anyway
17:56:43 <Zakim> -plinss
17:56:50 <bradk> did it stop?
17:56:55 <Zakim> -CesarAcebal
17:57:32 <TabAtkins> So yeah, I'd prefer an official mail from us about the issue.
17:57:35 <glazou> ACTION glazou: answer from CSS WG to public-web-security saying the issues are related to security model of the web and CSS cannot do a lot
17:57:35 <trackbot> Created ACTION-200 - Answer from CSS WG to public-web-security saying the issues are related to security model of the web and CSS cannot do a lot [on Daniel Glazman - due 2009-12-16].
17:57:48 <TabAtkins> So people don't think that it's something wrong with CSS that can just be patched away.
17:57:57 <glazou> let's adjourn the meeting
17:58:16 <Zakim> +bradk
17:58:23 <glazou> thanks guys, and sorry for the phone bridge even if that's not our fault
17:58:37 <glazou> TabAtkins: yep
17:58:44 <glazou> bradk: sure, we're all gone
17:59:20 <bradk> This was the first time I used Google Voice. Could that have been doing that, even when I was muted?
17:59:32 <TabAtkins> Nah, I normally use google voice to call in.
17:59:46 <bradk> I'm thinking it was one of us.
17:59:55 <glazou> I don't think so
18:00:07 <TabAtkins> It went away for a minute or so when chris hung up.
18:00:11 <TabAtkins> So i think it's bridge-related.
18:00:18 <glazou> and went back when howcome reconnected
18:00:19 <Zakim> -bradk
18:01:11 <bradk> do they use the same phone-in number?
18:02:39 <glazou> both ChrisL and howcome probably use the european bridge unless they're traveling
18:02:57 <glazou> but we all heard morse code
18:02:58 <TabAtkins> but don't a few other people use the european bridge?
18:03:04 <glazou> so it's probably a zakim issue
18:03:07 <glazou> MIT
18:03:16 <Bert> I called the French number.
18:03:32 <Zakim> -fantasai
18:03:34 <Zakim> Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
18:03:36 <Zakim> Attendees were [Microsoft], +1.617.650.aaaa, glazou, plinss, dethbakin, smfr, Bert, bradk, David_Baron, ChrisL, CesarAcebal, +02165aabb, TabAtkins, +1.650.275.aacc, SteveZ,
18:03:38 <Zakim> ... fantasai, howcome
18:03:52 <glazou> yeah me too
18:04:02 <glazou> Free makes it free :-)
18:05:06 <Bert> Free makes calling the US free, too. :-)
18:06:06 <Bert> But I'm in the office, where it's regular, old-fashioned, France Telecom.
18:06:31 <Bert> (And where calling a French number is thus cheaper than calling the US.)
18:08:00 <bradk> Bert, I heard you clearly even when some others said they couldn't, but their voices were broken up.
18:08:27 <glazou> bye guys
18:08:35 <bradk> bye
18:09:33 <Bert> I could hear Tab fairly clearly, but Glazou was broken up for me as it was apparently for everybody else.
18:10:57 <Bert> Maybe we had a ring connection instead of a star: Brad heard me, I heard Tab, Tab heard..., etc. :-)
18:14:08 <TabAtkins> I occasionally heard you, Bert.  But only about half the time.  Which was better than how much I heard everyone else…
18:14:14 <fantasai> :/
19:33:53 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #css
20:17:13 <Zakim> Zakim has left #CSS
20:29:38 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #css
21:14:08 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #css
21:42:58 <Curt`> Curt` has joined #css