16:35:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #CSS
16:35:31 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/01/13-CSS-irc
16:35:39 <glazou> Zakim, this will be Style
16:35:39 <Zakim> ok, glazou; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 25 minutes
16:36:25 <arronei> arronei has joined #CSS
16:42:24 <glazou> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:53:33 <dethbakin> dethbakin has joined #css
16:59:10 <smfr> smfr has joined #css
16:59:15 <Zakim> Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
16:59:20 <plinss> plinss has joined #css
16:59:22 <Zakim> +smfr
16:59:57 <Zakim> +plinss
17:00:07 <Zakim> +dethbakin
17:00:19 <Zakim> +TabAtkins
17:00:42 <oyvind> oyvind has joined #css
17:00:51 <Zakim> +[Mozilla]
17:01:02 <Zakim> +bradk
17:01:27 <glazou> Zakim, code?
17:01:27 <Zakim> the conference code is 78953 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), glazou
17:01:38 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #css
17:01:45 <Zakim> +??P11
17:02:06 <plinss> zakim, this is style
17:02:06 <Zakim> plinss, this was already Style_CSS FP()12:00PM
17:02:07 <Zakim> ok, plinss; that matches Style_CSS FP()12:00PM
17:03:01 <glazou> bridge refuses me, hold on please
17:03:44 <Zakim> +glazou
17:03:48 <glazou> finally
17:05:03 <Zakim> +Bert
17:05:08 <sylvaing> sylvaing has joined #css
17:05:42 <Zakim> +sylvaing
17:06:33 <TabAtkins> By the way, I'll be in SF tomorrow evening with nothing to do.  Anyone in the area want to meet for a late dinner?
17:06:35 <CesarAcebal> CesarAcebal has joined #css
17:06:52 <sylvaing> how can you have nothing to do in SF ?
17:07:17 <fantasai> ScribeNick: fantasai
17:07:42 <fantasai> Happy New Year everyone
17:07:53 <Zakim> +CesarAcebal
17:07:53 <ChrisL> ChrisL has joined #css
17:07:58 <TabAtkins> Because all I'm doing is flying down and waiting for the next day for my interview.
17:08:09 <TabAtkins> "Late" is relative - I'll arrive about 6:45
17:08:12 <fantasai> Topic: CSS2.1 Test Suite
17:08:23 <fantasai> Peter: Calling it done in a few days, see where we are
17:08:48 <bradk> Not this time Tab. SF is about 35 minute drive for me, but I'm busy tomorrow night.
17:08:52 <Zakim> +ChrisL
17:09:12 <fantasai> fantasai: Not all tests are indexable yet -- e.g. hixie's tests don't have metadata
17:09:18 <fantasai> fantasai: Microsoft's tests are now all indexable
17:10:13 <fantasai> fantasai: Plan is to publish a snapshot soon so we have a good sense of where we are
17:10:25 <fantasai> dbaron: So I'm expecting to post a refresh of Mozilla's submissions soon, sometime this week
17:10:31 <dbaron> aware of issues in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2009Sep/0012.html
17:10:36 <fantasai> dbaron: Boris has some run-in tests that he plans to write and submit
17:11:16 <fantasai> http://test.csswg.org/source/tools/
17:11:32 <glazou> TabAtkins: he is still on
17:11:43 <Zakim> -TabAtkins
17:12:26 <Zakim> +TabAtkins
17:12:58 <fantasai> glazou: What's ETA for another snapshot?
17:13:22 <fantasai> fantasai: I think we'll aim to get that done by the end of next week, but we'll see what issues we run into
17:15:43 <fantasai> fantasai: I'll be woring with Arron all of next week on the test suite.
17:15:49 <fantasai> peterl: Do you need help with anything?
17:16:27 <Bert> s/woring/working/
17:16:27 <fantasai> fantasai: If we just get the filenames to not conflict, we can use the existing build scripts to throw something up on w3.org
17:17:06 <fantasai> fantasai: Not ideal, because we can't make .e.g a zipped copy for use on windows (which can't handle that many files in one directory)
17:17:16 <fantasai> fantasai: Hopefully we get the build scripts fixed up for the beta next month
17:17:32 <ChrisL> q+ to wonder if adding the xhtml mime type would be easy
17:17:38 <fantasai> fantasai: Probably some help in reviewing the test suite for missing tests once the index is up..
17:18:14 <ChrisL> http://test.csswg.org/svn/contributors/microsoft/submitted/Chapter_15/font-001.xht
17:18:16 <fantasai> http://test.csswg.org/source/approved/css2.1/src/generate/content-counter-002.xht
17:19:17 <fantasai> Just change 'svn' to 'source' in the url
17:20:12 <fantasai> Peter: Since this is our top priority, we'll be checking on this every week
17:20:32 <fantasai> Topic: Feedback on Backgrounds and Borders
17:20:54 <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Jan/0109.html
17:20:57 <dbaron> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Jan/0112.html
17:21:31 <fantasai> fantasai: I suggest adopting Tab's response as official
17:21:39 <fantasai> Brad: does that include the part about media queries?
17:21:48 <fantasai> fantasai: Yes. We agreed to do that when dsinger brought it up at the F2F
17:22:04 <fantasai> Everyone agrees with Tab's response
17:22:09 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Tab's response is official
17:22:40 <fantasai> ACTION Daniel Respond that Tab's response is the official WG position
17:22:40 <trackbot> Created ACTION-201 - Respond that Tab's response is the official WG position [on Daniel Glazman - due 2010-01-20].
17:22:59 <fantasai> Topic: Absolute Length Units
17:23:05 <fantasai> (pt vs. px)
17:23:23 <fantasai> dbaron: Do we have good data on what existing browsers are doing?
17:23:33 <fantasai> Tab: At least for pt, yes.
17:24:31 <fantasai> fantasai: Can we get a writeup on the thread? All proposals, with pros and cons, summary of what seems to be the general consensus, who's dissenting and why, what raw data we have, etc.
17:24:51 <fantasai> ACTION Tab: write up pt px thread
17:24:51 <trackbot> Created ACTION-202 - Write up pt px thread [on Tab Atkins Jr. - due 2010-01-20].
17:26:11 <fantasai> Peter: Print drivers can scale and zoom as well. You don't want to redefine units there
17:26:26 <fantasai> Peter: That scaling happens way after layout is done.
17:26:54 <fantasai> Peter: I'm objecting to redefining pt so that it is no longer 1/72 of an inch
17:27:13 <fantasai> Tab: In one of the browsers it's scaled to 4/3px rather than 1/72 in
17:27:33 <fantasai> Peter: I don't care what defines what in what order, as long as the relationships stay the same
17:27:51 <fantasai> Peter: We can change the relationship of px to physical units, but not physical units to each other
17:27:56 <fantasai> Peter: that's just insanity
17:28:27 <fantasai> ...
17:28:35 <fantasai> Peter: We're talking about the px unit, not a device pixel
17:29:09 <glazou> +1
17:29:11 <fantasai> Peter: Allowing the px unit to float and scale and size in relation to the device pixel is what's leading to breakage
17:29:23 <fantasai> Peter: because device resolutions are dramatically different these days
17:29:37 <fantasai> Peter: and will continue to change
17:29:42 <ChrisL> I think the confusion started when Macs often had 72 pixels per inch so 1pc was 1 point. Sometimes people still assert that points and pixels are joined at the hip like that
17:29:57 <fantasai> Peter: Allowing the px unit to change to try to match a device pixel is what's causing problems
17:30:22 <fantasai> Bert is really confused now
17:30:40 <fantasai> s/pc/px/ in Chris's msg
17:31:36 <fantasai> Tab: Are we saying that CSS px should not be tied to the device pixel in any way?
17:32:01 <fantasai> Peter: It makes sense in many cases for the UA to round the ratio
17:32:53 <fantasai> Chris describes the jump from 1px = 1 device pixel to 1px = 2 device pixel
17:33:01 <ChrisL> they are often rounded to 1:1. Problem is we are approaching the time where the dpi is tweice 96
17:33:03 <fantasai> Chris and how it creates a disconcerting discontinuity
17:33:47 <fantasai> dbaron: On mobile devices, the dpi might be twice 96dpi, but people hold them closer so the viewing angle becomes important
17:34:14 <fantasai> Peter: I think this idea of true inches etc. is also crazy
17:34:45 <fantasai> ...
17:35:00 <fantasai> Bert: px unit is most useful. It is the only one that is guaranteed to be visible everywhere and sharp
17:35:56 <fantasai> Peter doesn't like px.
17:36:05 <fantasai> Peter: Then you have problems with bitmap images
17:36:18 <fantasai> fantasai: One image pixel is 1px. So it will scale with px
17:37:07 <fantasai> Tab: And because px rounds to device pixels, it's still sharp
17:37:14 <fantasai> Peter talks about nextstep
17:37:19 <sylvaing> ..and text is also going sub-pixel...
17:37:34 <fantasai> Bert: At least on a map, most browsers display pt too small.
17:37:37 <fantasai> s/map/mac/
17:37:47 <ChrisL> sylvaing - yes, subpixel positioning is really helping
17:38:19 <fantasai> Peter: So Tab will post a writeup to www-style. Anyone else have anything?
17:38:31 <fantasai> Topic: Numeric Precision in CSS Numbers
17:38:55 <fantasai> Simon: It's not specified how numbers get formatted if there are lots of decimal places
17:39:07 <fantasai> Simon: Some browsers report that in scientific notation, which doesn't parse back
17:39:13 <ChrisL> answer is to allow scientific notation
17:39:30 <fantasai> Simon: I'm looking for how large numbers and numbers with lots of decimal points should be round-tripped.
17:39:42 <dbaron> I consider the scientific notation seralization that we do to be a bug; I fixed part of it at one point (I forget whether it was the computed style part or the CSSStyleDeclaration part)
17:40:13 <fantasai> Simon: We don't want to go through text for all our apis
17:40:35 <fantasai> Tab: Opera doing 2 decimals and WebKit doing 6 is weird
17:41:06 <fantasai> Simon: Opera seems to be using 16 bits to store the number
17:41:17 <dbaron> X11 is still limited to 16-bit numbers in many cases
17:41:27 <dbaron> but that tends not to be a real problem
17:41:31 <fantasai> Tab doesn't understand why it's not 32bits
17:41:49 <fantasai> Peter: So did we want to allow scientific notation?
17:42:03 <fantasai> Chris: SVGWG allows scientific notation; we asked for it from CSS awhile ago, but the answer was no
17:42:41 <fantasai> Simon: It's important for transforms, you get numbers very close to zero but not quite
17:42:58 <fantasai> Bert: The precision is another question -- it's about internal representation
17:43:03 <fantasai> Peter: Several questions
17:43:12 <fantasai> Peter: Should we define a minimum precision?
17:43:20 <fantasai> Peter: Should we allow scientific notation?
17:43:58 <fantasai> Bert: Precision is defined in bits, not in decimals
17:44:18 <fantasai> fantasai: I don't think there should be a limit on what we allow, but having a minimum makes sense
17:44:38 <fantasai> Peter: require the browser to be able to round-trip
17:44:44 <arronei> I really like haveing a minimum definition so I can test interoperability.
17:44:56 <fantasai> dbaron: I think anything you can produce as output you should accept as input
17:45:09 <fantasai> dbaron: Things you take as input, you sometimes transform the first time you output them
17:45:37 <fantasai> dbaron: But anything you produce as output, you should accept as input that generates the same output
17:46:12 <dbaron> (the second one is saying that parse+serialize is idempotent)
17:46:22 <fantasai> Bert: If you're adding up numbers, sometimes the order you add them in will affect things
17:46:43 <fantasai> ...
17:47:09 <fantasai> glazou: Since the browsers sometiems output scientific notation, does that mean we accept scientific notation?
17:47:15 <fantasai> dbaron: That's a bug
17:47:53 <fantasai> Chris: Bert, would there be a problem adding scientific notation to CSS?
17:48:20 <fantasai> Bert: The core grammar would have to change. We try not to change that, because it's a part of the spec we say we will not change
17:48:28 <dbaron> you can serialize as 0.00000000275465
17:48:29 <fantasai> Bert: Why do we need them now?
17:49:09 <fantasai> Simon: transitions and transforms
17:49:43 <fantasai> dbaron: Anything that you can serialize anything in decimal that you can in scientific notation
17:49:55 <fantasai> dbaron: You just wind up with a lot of zeros that are not necessarily significant
17:50:14 <fantasai> Chris: Accepting scientific notation would allow better HTML-SVG-CSS integration
17:50:35 <fantasai> glazou: We could investigate how to follow dbaron's rules
17:50:49 <fantasai> glazou: And investigate what it would take to accept scientific notation
17:50:58 <bradk> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notation#Normalized_notation
17:50:58 <fantasai> ?: It was rejected before
17:51:01 <bradk> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notation#Normalized_notation
17:51:05 <fantasai> Chris: Maybe because there wasn't a good argument for it
17:51:16 <fantasai> glazou: It was rejected before for lack of use case iirc
17:51:16 <bradk> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notation#E_notation
17:51:56 <fantasai> ...
17:52:12 <fantasai> Simon: Let's say you apply a transform for rotating 89deg
17:52:31 <fantasai> Simon: You get a matrix back that has some very small numbers
17:52:44 <fantasai> Simon: Say you want to print that out as a string
17:53:00 <fantasai> Sylvain: You want to take that matrix and write it somewhere else
17:53:08 <fantasai> Bert: Why don't you just write out all the zeroes?
17:53:26 <fantasai> Simon: You'd get a long string of zeroes
17:54:39 <fantasai> glazou: Scientific notation wouldn't help in cases where you have e.g. 1.0000something
17:55:15 <fantasai> RESOVLED: Adopt dbaron's rules.
17:55:30 <dbaron> s/RESOVLED/RESOLVED/
17:55:41 <fantasai> ACTION Simon: Write up a proposal for handling dbaron's rules
17:55:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-203 - Write up a proposal for handling dbaron's rules [on Simon Fraser - due 2010-01-20].
17:56:31 <ChrisL> e.g. 2.007e6
17:57:27 <fantasai> Topic: Style Attribute Grammar
17:57:29 <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Jan/0152.html
17:58:58 <fantasai> glazou: It doesn't change anything
17:59:14 <fantasai> dbaron: Yes, but grammar patterns tend to be more reusable if they follow the same whitespace patterns
17:59:30 <fantasai> dbaron: I think ours tend to put whitespace at the end only
17:59:31 <dbaron> but probably doesn't matter since it's not a complicated production
18:00:08 <fantasai> ACTION Bert: Review this issue
18:00:09 <trackbot> Created ACTION-204 - Review this issue [on Bert Bos - due 2010-01-20].
18:00:39 <fantasai> glazou: Whatever the result, I think we should publish asap
18:01:38 <fantasai> fantasai: I'm ok with whatever Bert decides on the grammar, and to just decide to publish whatever he decides
18:01:46 <fantasai> fantasai: The next step is LCWD
18:01:48 <Zakim> -ChrisL
18:01:52 <Zakim> -smfr
18:01:54 <Zakim> -[Mozilla]
18:01:54 <Zakim> -sylvaing
18:01:55 <Zakim> -dethbakin
18:01:56 <Zakim> -CesarAcebal
18:02:06 <Zakim> -TabAtkins
18:02:23 <Zakim> -bradk
18:02:41 <TabAtkins> Just in case anyone missed it earlier, if anyone in the SF area is available for dinner tomorrow evening, I'll be in the area with nothing to do.
18:03:15 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Publish css-style-attr as LCWD, with whatever Bert decides on the grammar issue. 3 weeks LC period
18:03:25 <Zakim> -glazou
18:03:27 <Zakim> -plinss
18:03:29 <Zakim> -fantasai
18:03:33 <Zakim> -Bert
18:03:35 <Zakim> Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
18:03:36 <Zakim> Attendees were smfr, plinss, dethbakin, TabAtkins, bradk, David_Baron, fantasai, glazou, Bert, sylvaing, CesarAcebal, ChrisL
18:21:45 <CesarAcebal> CesarAcebal has left #css
18:55:21 <dethbakin> dethbakin has joined #css
19:36:57 <Zakim> Zakim has left #CSS
19:37:57 <smfr> smfr has left #css
19:41:18 <dbaron> fantasai, did you contribute the tests in http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/style/specs/css2.1/tests/min-max-replaced to the test suite already?
21:27:16 <Lachy> Lachy has joined #css
21:28:38 <fantasai> dbaron: hixie put them in already, so yes
22:29:00 <dbaron> Hmmm.  I guess I can't contribute all the list bullet positioning tests I wrote since CSS2.1 makes the position of the list bullet explicitly undefined.
22:47:21 <fantasai> how about you dump them in a css3-lists directory? ;)
22:52:39 <Curt`> Curt` has joined #css