IRC log of CSS on 2010-05-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:24:15 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #CSS
15:24:15 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:25:04 [glazou]
Zakim, this will be Style
15:25:04 [Zakim]
ok, glazou; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 35 minutes
15:33:03 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
15:35:56 [Lachy]
Lachy has joined #css
15:52:04 [glazou]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:54:05 [TabAtkins_]
TabAtkins_ has joined #css
15:55:28 [dethbakin]
dethbakin has joined #css
15:55:46 [oyvind]
oyvind has joined #css
15:56:04 [glazou]
Zakim, code ?
15:56:04 [Zakim]
the conference code is 78953 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), glazou
15:56:06 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
15:56:22 [Zakim]
+ +1.858.216.aaaa
15:56:30 [plinss]
zakim, aaaa is me
15:56:30 [Zakim]
+plinss; got it
15:58:27 [Zakim]
+ +95089aabb
15:59:56 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.650.aacc
16:00:14 [dethbakin]
zakim, aacc is me
16:00:14 [Zakim]
+dethbakin; got it
16:00:50 [bradk]
bradk has joined #css
16:01:51 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.920.aadd
16:01:59 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.275.aaee
16:02:01 [Zakim]
- +1.415.920.aadd
16:02:07 [ChrisL]
ChrisL has joined #css
16:02:15 [bradk]
Zakim, aaee is me
16:02:15 [Zakim]
+bradk; got it
16:02:19 [Zakim]
16:02:33 [Zakim]
16:02:59 [Zakim]
16:03:13 [arronei]
zakim, microsoft is me
16:03:15 [Zakim]
16:03:17 [Zakim]
+arronei; got it
16:03:54 [smfr]
smfr has joined #css
16:04:11 [Zakim]
16:04:12 [Zakim]
16:04:16 [glazou]
Zakim, whois noisy?
16:04:16 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, glazou.
16:04:50 [Zakim]
16:04:50 [fantasai]
ScribeNick: fantasai
16:04:54 [glazou]
TabAtkins_: np
16:05:44 [fantasai]
glazou: please send minutes from last week
16:05:58 [fantasai]
glazou: No extra agenda items today
16:06:10 [fantasai]
16:06:13 [fantasai]
16:06:16 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.636.aaff
16:06:30 [smfr]
Zakim, aaff is smfr
16:06:30 [Zakim]
+smfr; got it
16:06:30 [fantasai]
glazou: Arron sent me an email on the status of the spec. We have 57 open issues on CSS2.1
16:06:35 [fantasai]
glazou: list is in the agenda
16:06:46 [fantasai]
glazou lists assigned actions
16:06:53 [fantasai]
glazou: 23 open and unassigned
16:07:00 [fantasai]
glazou: We have to solve all of these asap.
16:07:08 [fantasai]
glazou: Ideally we'd like to have all the proposals by the end of this month
16:07:24 [fantasai]
glazou: and assign the actions to update the spec and the test suite
16:07:49 [fantasai]
Bert: It's not as bad as it seems. All but 2 of mine are editorial.
16:08:49 [fantasai]
glazou: Let's browse the issues
16:08:51 [glazou]
16:09:03 [glazou]
16:09:11 [fantasai]
dbaron: We came to a resolution for 26, but I need to write wording. 101 I need to look into
16:09:18 [fantasai]
glazou: Can you do that before the end of the month?
16:09:19 [fantasai]
dbaron: I think so
16:09:28 [glazou]
16:10:30 [Zakim]
16:10:31 [fantasai]
fantasai: I'm supposed to work on the test suite, so I probably won't get to CSS2.1 issues until beginning of June
16:10:44 [fantasai]
glazou: How do these issues impact the test suite?
16:10:51 [fantasai]
fantasai: Some will require test changes, other require more tests.
16:11:41 [fantasai]
arronei: I've been trying to track issues and write tests, but haven't caught everything
16:11:46 [glazou]
16:12:01 [fantasai]
fantasai ... June
16:12:18 [fantasai]
arronei: Sylvain's issue, I think he just needs to send out a summary email on that.
16:12:42 [fantasai]
glazou: Bert?
16:13:29 [fantasai]
Bert: Haven't read through the anonymous table one, I had promised to do that before editing.
16:14:00 [fantasai]
Bert: The one on table captions and block-level items, #120, that will take me time
16:14:06 [fantasai]
Bert: but should be possible before the end of the month
16:14:51 [fantasai]
glazou: Arron?
16:15:01 [fantasai]
arronei: I should have the testcase ones today or tomorrow.
16:15:18 [fantasai]
arronei: I assigned one to myself about creating images for line-height etc. I can have that done this week
16:15:33 [fantasai]
glazou: Tab sent an email about his actions
16:15:39 [fantasai]
glazou: He did issue 161
16:15:46 [fantasai]
glazou: And will have a proposal for 110 by Friday.
16:16:09 [fantasai]
glazou: We have 11 issues assigned to the WG, and 12 that are unassigned
16:16:23 [fantasai]
arronei: Do we have feedback on the SVGWG one yet?
16:17:08 [fantasai]
ChrisL: In summary, I'm halfway through porting your testcases to SVG. Should be done by end of this week. We have an F2F end of may, so should be able to discuss and close the issue June 2nd
16:17:36 [fantasai]
glazou: First unassigned issue is 86
16:17:44 [fantasai]
16:19:18 [fantasai]
dbaron: The horizonal position is straightforward, vertical maybe harder.
16:19:26 [fantasai]
dbaron: Could also leave it undefined
16:19:34 [fantasai]
fantasai: Prefer to leave it undefined, define in CSS3 Lists
16:19:38 [fantasai]
arron agrees.
16:19:41 [dbaron]
actually, the complexity of horizontal and vertical isn't that different
16:20:03 [fantasai]
RESOLVED: Leave exact position of the bullet undefined.
16:22:07 [fantasai]
"The position of the list-item marker in the presence of floats and when text-align is not its initial value is undefined in CSS2.1."
16:22:44 [bradk]
"when adjacentg to floats" maybe?
16:22:53 [fantasai]
16:23:23 [glazou]
16:23:52 [dbaron]
I think this is basically :-)
16:24:05 [dbaron]
at least 4a
16:25:27 [fantasai]
dbaron: I think 4b and 4c are relatively straightforward.
16:25:40 [fantasai]
dbaron: I think this was a point we missed when we added the strut
16:26:05 [fantasai]
dbaron: I think the solution is to remove bullet .4 and add a parenthetical to .3 mentioning the strut
16:27:15 [fantasai]
dbaron: "(Including the strut described below.)"
16:27:26 [fantasai]
dbaron: Although we don't actually say strut, we say "what TeX calls a strut"
16:28:25 [fantasai]
I suggest "(taking into consideration the strut mentioned below)"
16:28:35 [fantasai]
dbaron: 4a is the same as my message from 1999.
16:28:44 [fantasai]
dbaron: I think we resolved to leave it undefined in 2.1 and define it in 3
16:29:32 [Zakim]
16:29:53 [fantasai]
glazou: fine by me
16:30:07 [fantasai]
fantasai: Do we need to make it explicitly undefined?
16:30:16 [fantasai]
dbaron: It's not currently stated as undefined
16:30:36 [Zakim]
16:31:10 [fantasai]
RESOLVED: Mark 4a undefined in CSS2.1, accept dbaron's proposal (drop 4 and add parenthetical to 3) for 4b and 4c.
16:31:18 [glazou]
16:31:50 [fantasai]
dbaron: I think 10a is editorial, but probably a good idea
16:33:24 [dbaron]
I think 10b is editorial; I have no opinion either way.
16:33:41 [fantasai]
Bert: There's more explanation in CSS3, but I wouldn't want to copy it all.
16:34:26 [fantasai]
several happy to leave explanation to CSS3
16:34:37 [fantasai]
fantasai: I don't see us having a motivation to work on CSS3 Line in the near future
16:35:07 [fantasai]
glazou: What are our options?
16:35:28 [fantasai]
Bert: The issue there is to mention that baselines are found in the font. Maybe we can make a note about baselines being found in the font metrics somewhere
16:35:47 [fantasai]
Chris: Yes, I think that's enough of a hint to say that they're in the font without having to import the whole css3 line module.
16:36:00 [fantasai]
arron: And maybe say at the end of that that this will be defined further in a future specification.
16:36:44 [glazou]
16:37:01 [Zakim]
16:37:03 [fantasai]
arron: I think this can be done at the same time 120 is being updated with a new proposal
16:37:38 [Zakim]
16:37:50 [fantasai]
dbaron: I think they're actually done rather different. The definition Anton cites for table cells is not really the definition that we want here anyway
16:38:32 [fantasai]
dbaron: The baseline of a block is the baseline the block would have if it had text in it
16:38:48 [fantasai]
dbaron: The problem is that what the baseline actually is depends on what characters are in the block. We just sort of ignore that issue and pick one
16:39:13 [fantasai]
dbaron: This another reason why the anonymous root inline box idea works better than the strut idea.
16:39:30 [fantasai]
dbaron: That said, I think the proposal in the issues list, to remove "block's", is the right idea here.
16:40:07 [fantasai]
dbaron: I can also see changing block's baseline to line's baseline. But I'd be ok either way, and maybe Bert can come up with something better
16:40:21 [fantasai]
Bert: Either would work for me. Don't know which is better. Can't think of a third option.
16:41:07 [glazou]
16:41:59 [fantasai]
Bert: It's a bit more complex than that. To get all the backup out of the parser, we'd have to change some of the tokens. I'm not in favor of that.
16:42:09 [fantasai]
Bert: There aren't many cases that change.
16:43:11 [fantasai]
glazou: Zack's email was mostly concerned about performance of the scanner.
16:43:40 [fantasai]
glazou: It is not necessary to implement CSS parsing using the tokens in the grammar, they are just there to define things.
16:43:52 [fantasai]
Bert: Yes, but you'd still have to buffer things no matter how you implement.
16:44:17 [fantasai]
dbaron: The point Zack made is something we generally want to be true: anything that is itself a token in the tokenizer, you want the same thing minus one character to also be a token.
16:44:38 [fantasai]
dbaron: Whether or not that thing is the same token is less important.
16:44:58 [fantasai]
dbaron: You don't want to start parsing a long token, realize it doesn't end, and have to go back all the way to the beginning.
16:45:07 [fantasai]
dbaron: The current place we have this problem is the url() token.
16:45:42 [fantasai]
dbaron: Gecko gets around this by handling it in the parser.
16:46:05 [fantasai]
glazou: The prose says it is a URI. If it's not a valid URI, it should be an invalid token.
16:46:35 [fantasai]
dbaron: ... we're scanning all these characters. We build a character buffer of the characters that will be the URL.
16:47:30 [fantasai]
dbaron: If we get a valid URL token, then we save it. If we don't, we go backwards to the start.
16:47:52 [fantasai]
dbaron: If you need to backtrack you have to go and reparse and match parentheses and things
16:48:03 [fantasai]
peter: Parentheses aren't allowed unquoted.
16:48:32 [fantasai]
dbaron: But essentially, if you're using a tokenizer, you have to backtrack through the whole thing and retokenize so you handle brackets and parens correctly
16:49:42 [fantasai]
glazou: Is ? necessary?
16:49:50 [fantasai]
dbaron: I don't know.
16:50:16 [fantasai]
peter: We already say that url parsing is its own special world anyway
16:50:33 [fantasai]
dbaron: But in the error cases, you don't match that token. So if you follow the spec as written, you need to go back and retokenize
16:50:54 [fantasai]
dbaron: An example of an invalid url token is url(a'b)
16:51:18 [fantasai]
dbaron: One of the things Zack was proposing was to add a new token for invalid URIs so that you don't have to backtrack.
16:51:35 [fantasai]
dbaron: A token that represents the invalid cases so you don't have to go back and count brackets and braces.
16:51:45 [fantasai]
peter: I think I prefer that.
16:51:54 [fantasai]
peter: It may be a bit weird to define that token
16:53:18 [dethbakin]
dethbakin has joined #css
16:53:49 [fantasai]
glazou: Ok, let's defer this until next week so we have time to discuss, dbaron with Zack, etc.
16:54:35 [glazou]
alllo ?-)
16:54:44 [Zakim]
- +95089aabb
16:54:45 [dbaron]
glazou, we still hear each other
16:54:48 [fantasai]
ChrisL is talking, so maybe you need to reconnect
16:54:50 [dbaron]
glazou, but we can't hear you
16:54:56 [fantasai]
16:55:08 [Zakim]
+ +95089aagg
16:55:08 [Zakim]
16:55:16 [glazou]
Zakim, aagg isme
16:55:16 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'aagg isme', glazou
16:55:31 [glazou]
Zakim, 95089aagg is me
16:55:31 [Zakim]
sorry, glazou, I do not recognize a party named '95089aagg'
16:55:39 [fantasai]
Zakim, aagg is glazou
16:55:39 [Zakim]
+glazou; got it
16:56:12 [fantasai]
Chris: I have some proposals for other issues
16:56:17 [ChrisL]
ISSUE 143 has already been dealt with, a very clear spec change looks good to me, suggest closing it
16:56:30 [ChrisL]
16:57:27 [fantasai]
ChrisL: fantasai's wording changes look good, let's put those in
16:57:41 [fantasai]
RESOLVED: Copy Selectors 3 wording into 2.1 for issue 143
16:57:48 [ChrisL]
16:58:22 [ChrisL]
Add 'unicode-bidi: embed' should be there
16:58:48 [fantasai]
dbaron: It was removed in the first WD of 2.1, but I can't find a record of why.
16:59:06 [ChrisL]
16:59:07 [fantasai]
ChrisL: It might have been removed because someone didn't understand why it was there. We all agree it should be there, so let's put iback in
16:59:13 [fantasai]
RESOLVED: Accept proposal for 148
16:59:22 [dbaron]
So I think the reason it might have been taken out was concern about embedding levels bumping above 63.
17:00:01 [fantasai]
Hm, yes, but we should have wording to prevent embedding levels from increasing on blocks
17:00:25 [fantasai]
Issue 156 was resolved at F2F, resolution was not copied into issues list.
17:01:17 [fantasai]
glazou: Please review the vendor prefixes thread so we can discuss it.
17:01:28 [Zakim]
17:01:29 [fantasai]
arron: Please everyone take a look through the unowned issues
17:01:30 [Zakim]
17:01:30 [Zakim]
17:01:31 [Zakim]
17:01:32 [Zakim]
17:01:34 [Zakim]
17:01:36 [Zakim]
17:01:38 [Zakim]
17:01:40 [Zakim]
17:01:40 [Zakim]
17:01:41 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
17:01:43 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.858.216.aaaa, plinss, +95089aabb, +1.617.650.aacc, dethbakin, +1.415.920.aadd, +1.650.275.aaee, bradk, Bert, Michael_Cooper, ChrisL, arronei, David_Baron,
17:01:46 [Zakim]
... +1.408.636.aaff, smfr, SteveZ, +95089aagg, glazou
17:22:39 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #css
17:32:09 [arronei]
arronei has joined #CSS
17:39:38 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #css
18:25:25 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
18:56:27 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #CSS
19:57:52 [jdaggett]
jdaggett has joined #css
20:01:28 [ChrisL2]
ChrisL2 has joined #css