15:56:06 RRSAgent has joined #CSS 15:56:07 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/05/19-CSS-irc 15:56:10 Zakim, this will be Style 15:56:10 ok, glazou; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 4 minutes 15:56:15 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:56:39 Pfioooou, telephone and internet were borked 15 seconds ago... 15:57:36 Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started 15:57:43 +plinss 15:58:07 + +1.650.253.aaaa 15:58:14 zakim, aaaa is me 15:58:14 +TabAtkins; got it 16:00:12 bridge refusing me 16:00:30 +Bert 16:00:37 can"t dial in 16:00:48 +glazou 16:00:50 ah 5th attempt 16:00:54 +dsinger 16:01:11 Zakim, your friend bridge is lazy 16:01:11 I don't understand 'your friend bridge is lazy', glazou 16:01:49 dbaron has joined #css 16:01:54 dethbakin has joined #css 16:01:54 smfr has joined #css 16:01:57 dbaron has joined #css 16:02:04 +smfr 16:02:08 +[Apple] 16:02:09 dsinger_ has joined #css 16:02:20 +[Microsoft] 16:02:22 zakim, mute dsinger 16:02:22 dsinger should now be muted 16:02:24 Zakim, Apple has dethbakin 16:02:24 +dethbakin; got it 16:02:31 +sylvaing 16:02:39 zakim, who is on the phone? 16:02:39 On the phone I see plinss, TabAtkins, Bert, glazou, dsinger (muted), smfr, [Apple], [Microsoft], sylvaing 16:02:41 [Apple] has dethbakin 16:02:41 +[Mozilla] 16:02:45 Zakim, microsoft has arronei 16:02:45 +arronei; got it 16:02:45 sylvaing has joined #css 16:02:46 Zakim, [Mozilla] is David_Baron 16:02:47 +David_Baron; got it 16:02:50 zakim, microsoft is me 16:02:50 +arronei; got it 16:03:41 +??P8 16:04:08 good evening :) 16:04:57 probably me 16:05:10 zakim, ??p8 is me 16:05:10 +fantasai; got it 16:05:14 heh 16:05:39 ScribeNick: fantasai 16:06:01 Peter: Lots of open issues on CSS2.1 16:06:22 Peter: dbaron? ETA? 16:06:28 dbaron: Hopefully next week, but not sure 16:06:52 fantasai: I have not been working on issues, have been working on tests 16:07:39 sylvain: Waiting for an answer 16:07:52 Peter: Bert's issues mostly editorial... 16:08:10 Bert: Don't know which issues are worth discussing. 16:08:35 Arron: Been pulling together testcases. Should have no problem creating testcases. 16:08:43 Arron: Started on image, but not done yet. Guessing next week. 16:08:53 bradk has joined #css 16:09:25 Tab: Just have one open, need to do some edits to satisfy Boris to complete proposal. Rest was handled by fantasai's rewrite 16:09:33 Peter: 151? 16:09:47 s/151/161/ 16:09:57 http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1 16:10:18 Tab: Already sent proposal to list 16:10:26 fantasai: Link from issues list? 16:11:04 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Apr/0389.html 16:11:49 +bradk 16:12:41 RESOLVED: Accept Tab's proposal for issue 161 16:13:09 http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-129 16:13:39 Tab: I wish I understood enough to comment on that. 16:13:59 \me too 16:14:41 .. 16:14:47 Bert: Tried to implement change with flex 16:14:58 Bert: I only noticed a difference in speed for several thousand bytes 16:15:46 Bert: The claim was that it's inefficient, that inefficiency is at the level of microseconds 16:16:44 Peter: The change is just clarification, or change in error recovery? 16:16:55 fantasai: It's a change in error recovery, because you no longer match brackets. 16:17:54 Bert: url( ( ) 16:18:25 dbaron: I don't remember implementations passing the test I wrote for the test suite 16:19:25 +[Apple.a] 16:19:34 zakim, [apple] has dsinger 16:19:34 +dsinger; got it 16:19:48 -dsinger 16:19:58 http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/mozilla/incoming/reftests/bugs/invalid-url-handling.xht 16:20:25 Zakim, who's noisy? 16:20:35 smfr, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [Apple] (0%) 16:20:46 :) 16:21:40 opera 10.53 passes that one 16:21:44 Peter: The question is, should we be matching parentheses inside a URL token 16:22:05 dbaron: If it is a url() token, then you don't match brackets 16:22:15 dbaron: But if it's invalid, then it's not a url() token, and you have to match brackets 16:22:26 dbaron: This change is about not matching brackets for invalid url() tokens 16:23:11 dbaron: Look at test 9 for example 16:23:38 dbaron: Actually, I think 9 is not testing what it's supposed to test. 16:23:55 Peter: Brackets and braces are allowed in a URL. They should not match 16:24:04 Peter: and it's perfectly valid 16:24:27 I think test 9 would probably be more interesting if it had a ( 16:24:35 yes 16:24:52 seems like several tests need revising, I think eight doesn't do much either 16:25:23 Simon: Perhaps we should take this issue offline and have someone figure out what the behavior is 16:25:52 Peter: What is the desired behavior of url(() ? 16:26:02 Peter: Does that end the url, or is it consumed by the url? 16:26:28 Peter: Once we figure that out, then we can figure it out 16:27:06 We should really test that url([()) leaves the parser searching for a ] 16:27:12 fantasai: Question is whether we end the url token there or keep parsing until we close the url() token 16:28:10 Peter: Question is, do we keep parsing until we close the url( or do we also match against other things? 16:28:44 end the declaration as soon as that makes the url invalid? 16:29:21 we hit a syntax error in the URL itself. surely we should toss until we hit the end of the url() form, i.e. its closing )? 16:30:22 Peter: My opinion is that we don't back up and reinterpret things that were part of a valid URL. 16:30:32 url((abc)) is currently FUNCTION + ( + abc + ) + ). Question is to change it to INVALID_URI + ( + abc + ) + ) 16:30:52 -bradk 16:30:54 Peter summarizes the issue. 16:31:28 -glazou 16:31:35 Peter: Within a URL, a [ is just a valid character. We wouldn't normally try to match it. url([) is complete and valid 16:31:55 Peter: The question is, suppose you start parsing and you find url([ and then you find something that's invalid inside a URL. 16:32:05 +bradk 16:32:13 I have three added tests to that test (I'll commit later) that will definitely test this issue... 16:32:14 Peter: Do you go back and reparse the url([ as if it was not a URL to begin with (i.e. now go back and match brackets)? 16:32:34 I think I agree, the "[" is just a character that is valid. 16:32:34 Peter: The issue is how far do we have to back up if something breaks? 16:32:45 Peter: I would prefer that we don't back up at all. 16:32:45 the next "(" is a character that is invalid in the URL 16:32:59 I think if you see a ( in a url where it doesn't belong, then it was probably supposed to be a ) 16:33:01 so then we go into "toss the junk until we close the url( form" 16:33:11 fantasai: I'm in favor of not backing up, but no comment on what changes would be needed. 16:33:14 so don't keep looking for closing paren 16:33:32 dbaron: Zack had a proposal 16:33:38 Bert: I tested his grammar, and it works. 16:33:48 Bert: The question is do we really need it. My preference is not to change anything. 16:33:57 Peter: Do we have interop on this either way? 16:34:02 arronei: Not really 16:34:11 Peter: So something needs to change. 16:35:36 ie9 currently matching Gecko except on #14 16:35:56 Does anybody know what issue number this is? 16:36:05 Peter: So how do we want this to behave? Does anyone have an opinion besides me? 16:36:12 Bert: I want no change. 16:36:19 I prefer not backtracking 16:36:24 Peter: Do you want no change for the sake of no change, or ...? 16:36:25 -bradk 16:36:31 \brad got dropped again. sigh. 16:36:36 Bert: I want no change because this has not change in 15 years. 16:36:46 Bert: And I don't know if we can afford to change it. 16:37:00 Bert: I don't know who implements it, who would need to change. 16:37:10 Peter: Sounds like no change for the sake of no change. 16:37:12 Peter: We don't have interop 16:37:16 Bert: That's normal. 16:37:32 +bradk 16:37:51 -bradk 16:37:53 Peter: Would like to hear from Mozilla, MS, Apple 16:38:17 dbaron, 129 (if I understand correctly) 16:38:17 dbaron: I prefer not backtracking. I also just committed the additional 3 tests that definitely test this 16:38:48 Arron: I think we need to investigate this more, and I think there's a bug in the testcase. 16:38:56 Arron: My initial impression is that I'd prefer not to backtrack. 16:38:58 +bradk 16:39:03 Arron: Would like to test some more first 16:39:17 -bradk 16:39:17 Simon: I'd have to talk to hyatt to see his opinion on this 16:39:27 Peter: Sounds like we have action items to get more data, and we'll come back to this later 16:39:42 ACTION: Arron figure out opinion on issue 129 16:39:42 Created ACTION-229 - Figure out opinion on issue 129 [on Arron Eicholz - due 2010-05-26]. 16:39:48 ACTION: Simon figure out opinion on issue 129 16:39:48 Created ACTION-230 - Figure out opinion on issue 129 [on Simon Fraser - due 2010-05-26]. 16:40:07 +bradk 16:40:13 http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-137 16:40:48 OK, tests 15-17 in http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/mozilla/incoming/reftests/bugs/invalid-url-handling.xht are specifically designed to test this issue. 16:40:53 (129, that is) 16:41:30 dbaron: I think there's a whole bunch of things that absolutely depend on them being the containing blocks for floats. 16:42:14 Peter: Reading the summary, seems like everybody but WebKit uses the block, not the anonymous block. 16:43:33 dbaron: I think there are a bunch of other things where browsers are consistent in treating the anon box as the containing block 16:43:52 dbaron: So maybe we need to change the behavior of percentages, not containing block 16:44:25 dbaron: I think the basic float positioning rules in 9.5.1 depend on the anon box being the containing block 16:45:37 ... though that may depend on how you interpret rule 6 16:45:46 but, basically, I think rule 4 depends on it. 16:46:03 for the case of a float that's right below a block with a bottom margin 16:46:09 and followed by text 16:46:09 Bert: Trying to understand, is this about clarification or change? 16:46:20 Bert: What's meant is the
is the containing block 16:46:33 Bert: I think the text is clear enough, if bz thinks that's not the case we should work on that. 16:46:39 Bert: Is that the question? Better text? 16:47:07 dbaron: I remember discussions of float positioning rules in which we assumed the containing block was the anon box. 16:47:18 dbaron: Don't remember what exactly was the issue. 16:47:37 Bert: Maybe something with collapsing margins. Not about the height. 16:47:58 webkit looks like firefox when you remove the doctype 16:48:27 fantasai: table captions have a similar issue in that they push through the anon box for certain calculations 16:48:34 I think the simple testcase that depends on it is
float
16:48:54 or maybe we changed that 16:48:59 in which I think browsers uniformly place the float below the margin 16:49:07 but if the containing block weren't the anonymous block 16:49:37 Arron: Behavior is fairly consistent. I think it's just a bug in webkit 16:50:06 dbaron looks at wording for containing blocks and percentage heights 16:50:15 dbaron: I think WebKit is currently correct per the spec 16:50:17 I think WebKit's rendering of bz's testcase is clearly correct per current spec 16:50:18 dbaron: And we should fix the spec 16:50:21 without the doctype, that one is also the same in webkit 16:50:53 Bert thinks the containing block is the
element. 16:51:04 Tab and dbaron explain that there's an anonymous block in between. 16:51:30 dbaron points to bullet point 2 in the containing box definition, where it says "box", not "element" 16:52:35 dbaron: I posted a testcase to IRC showing that the anon box is the containing block for some other calculations. 16:53:24 Peter: So the anonymous box should be the containing block of the float, but it should not be used to compute the percentage height of the float. That box should be the nearest block-level element box 16:54:21 fantasai: That's consistent with tables. They have an anon box as their containing block, but percentages are calculated wrt that box's parent. 16:54:54 -bradk 16:55:11 Peter: Should we make this change generically, or specifically for this case? 16:55:26 fantasai: I think generically. There are a lot of properties to cover, and I don't want to miss out on any. 16:55:40 fantasai: Basically say that anon boxes are not used in percentage calculations 16:55:45 +bradk 16:55:58 Peter: Do we have enough tests for this, or do we need more? 16:56:11 Arron: I don't think we have a lot of tests that cover this specific case. 16:56:25 Arron: We have tests for percentages in general, but very few involving anonymous boxes. 16:57:54 Arron: Would that change be for every single percentage property, or in 10.1, or somewhere else? 16:58:06 Arron: Where are we going to take that? 16:59:23 Another issue is tables. 17:00:02 suppose I have
17:00:05 with border-spacing: 50px 17:00:14 er, make the div 50% 17:00:28 ACTION: fantasai write proposed text 17:00:28 Created ACTION-231 - Write proposed text [on Elika Etemad - due 2010-05-26]. 17:00:45 Peter: Can everyone look through unowned issues 17:00:50 -smfr 17:00:52 -[Apple] 17:00:53 -David_Baron 17:00:53 -arronei 17:00:53 Peter: And please update wiki with any updates 17:00:54 -sylvaing 17:00:56 -[Apple.a] 17:00:58 -TabAtkins 17:00:58 -Bert 17:00:59 -fantasai 17:01:02 -plinss 17:01:03 -bradk 17:01:05 Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended 17:01:06 Attendees were plinss, +1.650.253.aaaa, TabAtkins, Bert, glazou, dsinger, smfr, dethbakin, sylvaing, arronei, David_Baron, fantasai, bradk, [Apple] 17:11:09 smfr has left #css 17:40:40 shepazu has joined #css 18:34:32 DanC has joined #CSS 20:15:15 Zakim has left #CSS 20:54:52 Lachy has joined #css 21:01:20 jdaggett has joined #css 21:02:26 jdaggett_ has joined #css 21:19:39 Lachy has joined #css 21:23:54 dbaron has joined #css 21:26:30 Lachy has joined #css 21:32:56 shepazu has joined #css 22:09:45 shepazu has joined #css 22:41:34 anne has joined #CSS 23:25:41 shepazu has joined #css 23:26:28 Lachy has joined #css