IRC log of CSS on 2010-02-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:33:22 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #CSS
16:33:22 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:33:27 [glazou]
Zakim, this will be Style
16:33:27 [Zakim]
ok, glazou; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 27 minutes
16:33:34 [glazou]
RRSAgent, start
16:33:40 [glazou]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:50:59 [bradk]
bradk has joined #css
16:51:38 [dethbakin]
dethbakin has joined #css
16:53:20 [glazou]
hi dethbakin
16:53:31 [dethbakin]
hi glazou!
16:53:44 [glazou]
dethbakin: I found a CSS Object Model issue in both mozilla and webkit
16:53:49 [glazou]
see my last msg to www-style
16:53:58 [dethbakin]
glazou: oh! interesting
16:54:21 [glazou]
escaped chars are not serialized escaped...
16:54:27 [glazou]
and that breaks parsing
16:55:17 [dethbakin]
i see, very interesting
16:56:53 [sylvaing]
sylvaing has joined #css
16:56:54 [plinss_]
plinss_ has joined #css
16:57:00 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
16:57:06 [Zakim]
16:57:30 [Zakim]
16:57:34 [oyvind]
oyvind has joined #css
16:57:42 [Zakim]
16:58:21 [Zakim]
16:59:37 [glazou]
dethbakin: and FB is only one example here...
16:59:47 [smfr]
smfr has joined #css
17:00:27 [glazou]
dethbakin: FWIW it's bug 543428 in
17:00:46 [Zakim]
17:01:04 [glazou]
reaching same serialization for all Opera, Mozilla and WebKit would be great...
17:01:22 [Zakim]
17:01:27 [glazou]
I suggest we ask Anne precisely how Opera does it
17:01:40 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #css
17:01:53 [Zakim]
17:02:02 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.996.aaaa
17:02:19 [dsinger]
zakim, 996.aaaa is [Apple]
17:02:19 [Zakim]
sorry, dsinger, I do not recognize a party named '996.aaaa'
17:02:29 [Zakim]
17:02:31 [smfr]
way too picky
17:02:31 [dsinger]
zakim, +1.408.996.aaaa is [Apple]
17:02:31 [Zakim]
+[Apple]; got it
17:02:38 [dsinger]
zakim, [Apple] has dsinger
17:02:57 [Zakim]
+dsinger; got it
17:03:14 [dsinger]
zakim, wake up!
17:03:17 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'wake up!', dsinger
17:03:37 [Zakim]
17:03:58 [glazou]
Zakim, ??P5 is fantasai
17:03:58 [Zakim]
+fantasai; got it
17:04:05 [Zakim]
17:04:08 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
17:04:50 [ChrisL]
ChrisL has joined #css
17:05:58 [Zakim]
17:06:46 [fantasai]
ScribeNick: fantasai
17:07:03 [fantasai]
Daniel: Extra agenda items?
17:07:28 [fantasai]
Sylvain: At some point we need to talk about the border-radius gradient
17:07:36 [glazou]
17:07:39 [fantasai]
Sylvain: It's recommended in the spec, but not clearly defined
17:07:58 [fantasai]
Daniel: It's important, let's put it in the second position
17:08:03 [fantasai]
Topic: CSS2.1 Test Suite
17:08:09 [fantasai]
Daniel: Alpha version was posted last week
17:09:11 [fantasai]
Daniel: Any feedback on it?
17:10:28 [Zakim]
17:10:28 [fantasai]
fantasai: build process is painful? :) build scripts have bugs. Also reftests need to be integrated
17:10:35 [ChrisL]
I have been reviewing the font tests
17:10:38 [howcome]
howcome has joined #css
17:10:49 [fantasai]
Daniel: How many tests have been reviewed?
17:10:53 [fantasai]
fantasai: probably around 10%
17:11:07 [fantasai]
Daniel: Is it possible to review all tests before final release?
17:11:27 [fantasai]
fantasai: possible, but depends on how much time reviewers put in
17:11:41 [fantasai]
Daniel: We have two option: 1 we release without reviewing everything, 2 we review everything
17:12:11 [fantasai]
Daniel: We probably don't want to hold up REC for getting all tests reviewed
17:12:56 [fantasai]
fantasai: We are tracking which tests have been reviewed
17:13:12 [ChrisL]
Fantasai pointed out that each test says what its review status is
17:14:43 [fantasai]
Daniel: When can you have the reftests integrated?
17:14:54 [fantasai]
fantasai: Probably take me 4 days, so maybe in 2 weeks
17:15:04 [fantasai]
Topic: border radius gradients
17:15:13 [fantasai]
Sylvain: When you have a border radius, two borders join
17:15:38 [fantasai]
Sylvain: If you have two colors, a sharp transition does not look that good
17:15:45 [fantasai]
Sylvain: So the spec recommends a gradient
17:15:56 [fantasai]
Sylvain: But the spec doesn't specify exactly how the gradient should work
17:16:03 [fantasai]
Sylvain: So one you get differences between browsers
17:16:10 [fantasai]
Sylvain: Second the author has no control over it
17:16:32 [fantasai]
Sylvain: The other issue is, if browsers do the gradient, can you test whether the transition center is where the spec says it should be?
17:16:53 [fantasai]
Sylvain: The reason it's not defined is because the spec author felt vendors should experiment
17:17:08 [fantasai]
Sylvain: But once browser implement without a vendor prefix the behavior is frozen
17:17:34 [fantasai]
Sylvain: If I'm going to do it, then if you specify border-radius you get the sharp transition
17:17:58 [fantasai]
Sylvain: And if you specify -ms-border-radius then you get a gradient
17:18:29 [fantasai]
Chris: Saying the browser can pick whatever it likes is a recipe for disaster. Can't predict what will happen, so authors will not use it
17:18:46 [fantasai]
Daniel: Leaving it unspecified is fine for small border widths
17:19:05 [fantasai]
Daniel: Issues show up in thick borders
17:19:25 [fantasai]
17:19:31 [Zakim]
17:19:47 [fantasai]
dbaron: Given that we don't see a lot of examples of authors doing this with images, I'm skeptical that we should require something that involves a lot of implementation work
17:20:03 [fantasai]
dbaron: The reason we have border-radius is because authors were synthesizing it a lot with images
17:20:31 [fantasai]
dbaron: Unless there are a lot of examples where authors are using multiple colors, I don't think we need to make this a requirement for UAs
17:20:37 [fantasai]
dbaron: I like the transition line approach
17:21:12 [Zakim]
17:21:27 [fantasai]
dbaron: That nobody's implemented it doesn't mean authors can't express that they want it. People hack things with images if they really want it
17:22:36 [fantasai]
Sylvain: [missed]
17:22:43 [glazou]
lost phone cx
17:22:46 [glazou]
hold on pls
17:23:27 [Zakim]
17:23:35 [Zakim]
17:23:46 [fantasai]
fantasai: I'm happy to remove the recommendation
17:25:06 [fantasai]
Chris: That doesn't help at all. You still have unreliable behavior, and that's not what authors want.
17:25:28 [fantasai]
Brad: I think it's good that it's recommended. As an author, I think most of the time if I 2 colors meeting up in a curved corner I'd want a smooth blend
17:25:49 [fantasai]
Brad: But if it wasn't one, it's not something I'd spend a lot of time trying to get right in one browser and then be disappointed that it doesn't blend right in the other browser
17:26:00 [fantasai]
Brad: It's fine to me if a lightweight browser doesn't do the gradient
17:26:14 [fantasai]
Daniel: But for a thick border it's a problem
17:26:30 [fantasai]
Brad: It's more noticeable
17:27:01 [fantasai]
SteveZ: Where I come out on this is that the two effects: gradient vs line -- are so different, that I'd like control over which of those I wanted
17:27:15 [fantasai]
Steve: Writing the spec in a way of leaving it up to the browser vendor seems like a bad way of writing the spec
17:27:25 [fantasai]
Steve: We should say which one it is, we should just spec it
17:27:42 [fantasai]
Steve: Based on what dbaron and Sylvain said, going with the line is the best approach
17:28:05 [fantasai]
Daniel: Does XSL solve this issue?
17:28:12 [fantasai]
Steve: I don't remember
17:28:23 [fantasai]
Daniel: It would be useful to know if XSL has a solution for this
17:29:57 [fantasai]
fantasai: Wrt a switch, I haven't heard that any authors care enough that we should a) spec it b) implement it c) add it to the stuff authors have to learn. that's a lot of overhead for something nobody has said they want
17:30:15 [Zakim]
17:30:35 [Lachy]
Lachy has joined #css
17:30:42 [fantasai]
Daniel: when you have border-style groove with a thick border and a border radius, they might want a radient
17:30:52 [fantasai]
dbaron: Do they use anything like that?
17:30:56 [fantasai]
Daniel: Yes, I've seen it
17:31:03 [Lachy]
Lachy has joined #css
17:31:16 [fantasai]
Daniel: Our experience has shown that when we add it to the spec, authors use it in ways that we didn't expect.
17:31:51 [fantasai]
Sylvain: If it's important, let's specify it, and if it's not, let's take it out
17:32:00 [fantasai]
fantasai: What do you mean by take it out?
17:33:27 [fantasai]
Sylvain: No recommendation to do a gradient?
17:33:32 [fantasai]
fantasai: Is it allowed to do a gradient?
17:33:41 [fantasai]
Sylvain: no
17:35:57 [Bert]
(A gradient with a sharp corner may be allowed, but it would be have zero width, though. :-) )
17:35:57 [dbaron]
So, FWIW, has a button with rounded borders and multiple colors
17:36:03 [dbaron]
(the "more" button at the bottom)
17:36:13 [dbaron]
(if you're logged in)
17:36:36 [dbaron]
Given that it's a 1px border, they probably don't care which option we take.
17:37:33 [fantasai]
lots of people said something and didn't get to minute
17:38:05 [ChrisL]
17:38:20 [fantasai]
TabAtkins: fantasai's point was important. Authors complain about ugly borders. If two borders are subtly different, but neither is ugly, I don't think anybody will mind
17:38:27 [fantasai]
Daniel: People complain
17:38:51 [fantasai]
Daniel: And they will be using this feature in ways we did not expect
17:39:06 [dbaron]
So should we define how dotted borders are drawn? :-)
17:40:24 [fantasai]
Chris: There's two possible ways to take it out, Sylvain. One is to remove the recommendation to use a gradient.
17:40:33 [fantasai]
Chris: The alternative is to require a sharp transition.
17:40:48 [glazou]
glazou has joined #css
17:44:55 [fantasai]
TabAtkins: yes
17:45:09 [fantasai]
Chris says gradients are easy to specyf
17:45:18 [fantasai]
fantasai explains all the crazy cases in which they're not
17:50:55 [fantasai]
Brad: If we defined the region in which the transition happens and the points around which it happens, would that be ok?
17:51:08 [fantasai]
Daniel: Recommending is ok?
17:51:19 [fantasai]
Sylvain: Yes, but I want to know exactly what is recommended
17:52:17 [fantasai]
fantasai: Do you want an exact mathematical definition for the gradient, or do you just want the stops?
17:52:22 [fantasai]
fantasai: Because the stops are easy to specify
17:52:38 [TabAtkins]
View in Firefox for a somewhat weird cut: data:text/html;charset=utf-8,%3C%21DOCTYPE%20html%3E%3Cstyle%3Ediv%20%7Bwidth%3A%20500px%3Bheight%3A%20300px%3Bmargin%3A%20100px%3Bborder%3A%2050px%20double%20silver%3B-moz-border-radius%3A%200%20500px%200%200%20%2F%200%20300px%200%200%3Bborder-top-color%3A%20lightgreen%3Bborder-right-color%3A%20green%3B%7D%3C%2Fstyle%3E%3Cdiv%3E%3C%2Fdiv%3E
17:53:45 [fantasai]
Steve: If people aren't using gradients now, then let's not put them in.
17:55:37 [fantasai]
fantasai: ...
17:55:48 [fantasai]
Steve: You can't define the gradient precisely
17:56:07 [fantasai]
Brad: As long as it's pretty, nobody's going to really care
17:57:48 [fantasai]
17:57:55 [fantasai]
Daniel: We've got no consensus.
17:58:22 [dbaron]
Does "produces good results" include having acceptable performance when drawing hundreds of them at once?
17:58:31 [fantasai]
fantasai: How about this. Sylvain and I sit down and define the precise mathematical function that gives you pixel-perfect rendering on every browser that implements it. We spec that, and wait for implementors to complain
17:58:52 [fantasai]
Steve: What if I don't like your gradient definition?
17:59:09 [fantasai]
17:59:25 [fantasai]
Steve: Whatever we define, it should be printable
17:59:46 [Zakim]
17:59:47 [fantasai]
Daniel: We're discussing a CR. I don't want to end up with an objection to this CR
18:00:15 [fantasai]
Daniel: If we can reach no agreement at all on this feature, then we will have t remove it
18:00:38 [fantasai]
Sylvain: We don't have any consensus that it's important
18:00:50 [fantasai]
Sylvain: How can we reach consensus on how to do it?
18:01:35 [fantasai]
1. Require the sharp transition
18:01:43 [fantasai]
2. Drop recommendation for gradient, leave transition undefined
18:01:59 [fantasai]
3. Recommend gradient, define color stops
18:02:17 [fantasai]
4. Give precise mathematical definition for a gradient that will give pixel-perfect copies across implementations
18:02:25 [fantasai]
5. Drop border-radius
18:03:09 [Zakim]
18:03:11 [ChrisL]
18:03:13 [Zakim]
18:03:29 [fantasai]
fantasai: I'm unhappy with 1 or 5
18:03:32 [bradk]
18:03:33 [plinss_]
plinss_ has joined #css
18:03:43 [fantasai]
Sylvain: 2 is fine
18:03:47 [fantasai]
Chris: 3
18:03:49 [TabAtkins]
3 at least (4 seems like a lot of effort)
18:04:01 [fantasai]
Simon: 3
18:04:09 [fantasai]
Daniel: 3
18:04:14 [ChrisL]
3 is my first choice, 4 is ok, 2 acceptable but not dieal
18:04:25 [ChrisL]
18:04:42 [fantasai]
Tab: agree with Chris
18:04:58 [fantasai]
Bert: Any of the first 4 is fine by me
18:05:40 [Zakim]
18:05:58 [fantasai]
Peter: My concern if there's enough people that really care how it's going to join, we should provide a property that controls corner joins
18:06:10 [fantasai]
Tab: We can add border-radius-style if we really need to in the future
18:06:38 [fantasai]
Peter: Whatever we do should be a plausible default
18:06:42 [fantasai]
Tab: I think it's the best default
18:06:46 [fantasai]
Tab: To have a gradient
18:07:19 [fantasai]
Peter: other than that I abstain
18:08:16 [fantasai]
Peter: I don't care what the default is
18:09:21 [fantasai]
Sylvain: I'm ok with 2 or 3
18:09:56 [fantasai]
ACTION: fantasai post proposal for 3 to www-style
18:09:57 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-206 - Post proposal for 3 to www-style [on Elika Etemad - due 2010-02-10].
18:10:34 [Zakim]
18:10:36 [Zakim]
18:10:38 [Zakim]
18:10:39 [Zakim]
18:10:39 [Zakim]
18:10:41 [Zakim]
18:10:41 [Zakim]
18:10:42 [Zakim]
18:10:42 [Zakim]
18:10:51 [Zakim]
18:10:52 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
18:10:53 [Zakim]
Attendees were plinss, sylvaing, glazou, dethbakin, smfr, SteveZ, Bert, bradk, dsinger, fantasai, David_Baron, ChrisL, [IPcaller], TabAtkins, Hakon_Lie
18:53:43 [glazou]
glazou has joined #css
19:06:23 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
19:11:17 [anne]
apologies again btw
20:00:43 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #CSS
20:53:34 [plinss_]
plinss_ has joined #css
22:07:12 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #css