IRC log of CSS on 2010-06-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:31:02 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #CSS
15:31:03 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:31:09 [glazou]
Zakim, this will be Style
15:31:09 [Zakim]
ok, glazou; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 29 minutes
15:31:14 [glazou]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:47:18 [alexmog]
alexmog has joined #css
15:53:26 [bradk]
bradk has joined #css
16:00:50 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
16:00:57 [Zakim]
16:01:36 [glazou]
grrrr european bridge does not let me join again
16:02:13 [glazou]
Zakim, you can be painful
16:02:14 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'you can be painful', glazou
16:02:37 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.275.aaaa
16:02:51 [glazou]
Zakim, code?
16:02:51 [Zakim]
the conference code is 78953 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), glazou
16:03:05 [bradk]
Zakim, aaaa is me
16:03:05 [Zakim]
+bradk; got it
16:03:07 [Zakim]
16:03:22 [Zakim]
16:03:24 [oyvind]
oyvind has joined #css
16:03:46 [glazou]
guys, the european bridge refuses the key codes...
16:03:49 [glazou]
I can't join
16:04:21 [Zakim]
16:04:36 [dbaron]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is alexmog
16:04:36 [Zakim]
+alexmog; got it
16:04:53 [dbaron]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:04:53 [Zakim]
On the phone I see SteveZ, bradk, ??P12, David_Baron, alexmog
16:05:14 [dbaron]
Zakim, ??P12 is fantasai
16:05:14 [Zakim]
+fantasai; got it
16:05:41 [dbaron]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:05:41 [Zakim]
On the phone I see SteveZ, bradk, fantasai, David_Baron, alexmog
16:06:13 [Zakim]
+ +1.858.216.aabb
16:06:35 [glazou]
still unable to join..;
16:06:36 [Zakim]
- +1.858.216.aabb
16:07:22 [ChrisL]
ChrisL has joined #css
16:07:23 [plinss]
yes, having problems with zakim... (or my phone)
16:07:34 [Zakim]
+ +1.858.216.aacc
16:07:44 [bradk]
a lot of that going around
16:07:51 [sylvaing]
sylvaing has joined #css
16:07:53 [glazou]
grrrrr !!!
16:07:53 [dbaron]
Zakim, aacc is plinss
16:07:53 [Zakim]
+plinss; got it
16:08:25 [glazou]
plinss: I'm totally unable to join ; the bridge refuses the key codes !
16:08:28 [Zakim]
16:08:28 [Zakim]
16:08:44 [glazou]
ChrisL: major issues with the bridge today
16:09:02 [glazou]
I tried that
16:09:06 [glazou]
same problem
16:09:15 [dbaron]
press the digits of the passcode slowly
16:09:17 [ChrisL]
will ask ralph
16:09:24 [bradk]
I had to hang up and try again a couple times before I could join
16:09:26 [plinss]
I can probably conference you in on my phone (free calls to europe...)
16:10:19 [plinss]
are you at home?
16:10:46 [dbaron]
glazou, ^
16:10:52 [Zakim]
16:10:59 [plinss]
16:11:24 [glazou]
plinss: +33 1 30 61 21 14
16:11:33 [plinss]
give me a few...
16:12:05 [plinss]
16:12:19 [glazou]
16:12:57 [dbaron]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:12:57 [Zakim]
On the phone I see SteveZ, bradk, fantasai, David_Baron, alexmog, plinss, [Microsoft]
16:14:09 [ChrisL]
you can do *0 to get a real operator
16:14:09 [dbaron]
ScribeNick: dbaron
16:14:16 [ChrisL]
and marisol will help you
16:14:18 [Zakim]
16:14:20 [dbaron]
Topic: extra agenda items?
16:14:28 [dbaron]
fantasai: LC of backgrounds and borders
16:14:38 [dbaron]
Topic: CSS 2.1
16:14:55 [dbaron]
glazou: status of test suite?
16:15:16 [dbaron]
fantasai: Still trying to convert Hixie's tests. Have about 150 left; working through CGI scripts (avoid needing CGI).
16:15:22 [dbaron]
fantasai: hopefully will be done today or tomorrow
16:15:53 [dbaron]
glazou: something deferred from last week?
16:16:06 [dbaron]
fantasai: the bidi issue. We don't want a change, but the spec does need a clarification.
16:16:20 [dbaron]
fantasai: We need to clarify that we're not trying to override that we're not overriding the behavior of the LINE SEPARATOR character.
16:16:34 [dbaron]
ChrisL: I took that issue last week and discussed with r12a and gave me things to look into further.
16:17:11 [dbaron]
fantasai: I've been discussing bidi at a 2 day bidi F2F last 2 days, and this was the conclusion. We want X because it's compatible with plaintext.
16:17:46 [dbaron]
fantasai: We're not taking the change request, but we do need to clarify that we're not overriding LINE SEPARATOR's behavior.
16:18:09 [dbaron]
ChrisL: Also, sample style sheet for HTML4 says br:before { content: "\a" }
16:18:45 [dbaron]
fantasai: people expect <br> to end a paragraph (due to IE?), suggestion was changing HTML to say <br> is a paragraph break rather than line separator
16:18:55 [dbaron]
glazou: what other outstanding issues on radar?
16:19:29 [oyvind]
"changing HTML" - but we refer to 4 now?
16:19:48 [dbaron]
sylvaing: Haven't gotten to ???. Really want to get it done, though. Requires some time to think.
16:19:49 [oyvind]
should it refer to whatever version is the newest instead?
16:20:09 [dbaron]
fantasai: still haven't looked at my 2.1 issues
16:20:18 [dbaron]
fantasai: after publishing test suite
16:20:23 [bradk]
I don't have any 2.1 issues assigned to me.
16:20:51 [dbaron]
dbaron: Still have 1; not sure when I'll get to it.
16:21:08 [dbaron]
glazou: There were some messages from tab and others with concrete proposals; suggest leaving to next week.
16:21:12 [dbaron]
Topic: Vendor prefixes
16:21:48 [dbaron]
glazou: sylvain asked to divide topic in 2: (1) what's good/bad about current prefix policy (2) when should vendors submit things for standardization
16:22:26 [dbaron]
sylvaing: If a property is used all over the place, should it get standardized? (-webkit-text-size-adjust)
16:23:03 [dbaron]
glazou: I saw another blog post complaining about vendor prefixes -- authors having to use them for legacy browsers.
16:23:23 [dbaron]
glazou: We have to say something, even if we say we can't change it.
16:23:42 [dbaron]
glazou: First, when do we decide to remove a prefix? Second, what to do with legacy browsers / vendor-prefix properties?
16:24:00 [dbaron]
glazou: I proposed WG should be responsible for when vendor prefix should be removed.
16:24:32 [dbaron]
ChrisL: Another objection... intermediate step. Vendor prefixes should be for experimental/unproposed, then w3c prefix for in-process-of-standardization.
16:24:56 [dbaron]
ChrisL: We can't take off and add on prefixes easily around CR.
16:25:32 [dbaron]
ChrisL: There's always a risk that the prefixed property sticks.
16:26:05 [dbaron]
ChrisL: That in itself is an argument against vendor prefixes. (But on the other side...)
16:26:11 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.253.aadd
16:26:19 [tabatkins]
Zakim, aadd is me.
16:26:19 [Zakim]
+tabatkins; got it
16:26:28 [dbaron]
glazou: border-radius is a good example. Everyone has to write many properties.
16:26:35 [ChrisL]
s/Another objection/Another suggestion/
16:27:26 [dbaron]
bradk: -moz-border-radius-* was different
16:27:41 [dbaron]
glazou: We have to live with legacy browsers.
16:28:03 [dbaron]
glazou: Could browser vendors make minor upgrade of legacy versions to remove prefix if possible?
16:28:34 [dbaron]
glazou: If Fx 3.7 ships without prefix, is it possible to ship minor release of Fx 3.6 also removing the prefix?
16:29:07 [dbaron]
alexmog: What you're saying is that when 3.6 was released it was not standard, and it became standard when 3.7 was released?
16:29:25 [dbaron]
glazou: ok, never mind
16:29:41 [dbaron]
glazou: Other problem: time getting to CR can take years.
16:29:53 [dbaron]
glazou: Once people start using it we have to live with it.
16:30:20 [dbaron]
glazou, To be clear that property is stable enough to remove prefix before CR. Would it solve problem?
16:30:44 [fantasai]
dbaron, you're echoing horribly
16:30:56 [dbaron]
glazou echoes horribly now too
16:30:59 [ChrisL]
zakim, mute plinss
16:30:59 [Zakim]
plinss should now be muted
16:31:12 [dbaron]
Zakim, unmute plinss
16:31:12 [Zakim]
plinss should no longer be muted
16:31:37 [dbaron]
dbaron: I think it would be good to have a way to say we can remove prefixes for part of a draft without the whole thing going to CR.
16:31:54 [ChrisL]
I agree
16:32:02 [dbaron]
?: I agree
16:32:20 [glazou]
16:32:41 [dbaron]
sylvain: Opera 10.5 for background properties they support longhand properties without prefix but not in shorthand, and reverse for ???.
16:32:55 [fantasai]
16:32:59 [dbaron]
sylvaing: Should be some contract about doing the whole thing.
16:34:00 [fantasai]
dbaron: I removed prefixes on some background properties but didn't implement the shorthand because the shorthand wasn't published stable yet
16:34:01 [dbaron]
dbaron: I was unprefixing background props this week; didn't do all shorthand stuff because not stable yet; think that was the right choice.
16:34:05 [dbaron]
sylvaing: ?
16:34:21 [fantasai]
sylvaing: I think that would be confusing to authors, that the feature is only partially implemented in some browsers
16:34:24 [dbaron]
glazou: I don't think we intend to do that on a ???-property basis.
16:34:39 [dbaron]
glazou: When a suggestion is made we can study what subset we want to unprefix.
16:35:01 [dbaron]
sylvaing: I agree with david's point about background shorthand; changing lately -> interesting result.
16:35:07 [dbaron]
sylvaing: But we should be clear on the granularity.
16:35:29 [dbaron]
glazou: I have a question for Chris from a process POV. If we unprefix and the spec goes back to LC after CR and it takes much more time to move along REC track.
16:35:54 [dbaron]
glazou: Is that a bad signal to Consortium?
16:36:05 [dbaron]
ChrisL: From Process POV, process doesn't say anything about prefixes.
16:36:16 [dbaron]
ChrisL: For huge change we might rename property to avoid conflict.
16:36:33 [fantasai]
dbaron, you're not very understandable
16:36:43 [dbaron]
I'm on an actual phone
16:36:47 [dbaron]
It's somebody else's echo, I'm pretty sure.
16:37:32 [dbaron]
SteveZ: One thing that's true about process is that there should be external review beyond WG before something is permanent.
16:37:40 [dbaron]
SteveZ: So you shouldn't do it without last call.
16:37:53 [dbaron]
SteveZ: role of CR was to ensure interop
16:38:09 [dbaron]
SteveZ: removing prefix before interop could be significant mistake
16:38:36 [dbaron]
SteveZ: ...
16:38:40 [dbaron]
dbaron (before): We also have to worry about compat with properties not produced by this WG that were implemented without prefix. (e.g., overflow-x, etc.)
16:38:53 [dbaron]
SteveZ: Confusing to users if long and shorthand have different behavior.
16:39:05 [dbaron]
SteveZ: Not obvious to me that there's a simple process for doing this.
16:39:20 [dbaron]
SteveZ: Instead, can we do things that don't take so long, and not try to do so much, so the problem goes away?
16:39:45 [dbaron]
TabAtkins: That's the smaller spec approach.
16:40:27 [dbaron]
glazou: The smaller spec approach will never resolve dependencies between small specs.
16:40:45 [dbaron]
fantasai: The dependencies between specs should be handled by the specs depending on something older (2.1, previous CR).
16:40:56 [dbaron]
fantasai: In most cases tying together isn't really necessary.
16:41:33 [dbaron]
glazou: I'm hearing concerns but not really objections to idea of making part of spec advance faster or making a smaller spec to advance faster.
16:41:51 [dbaron]
fantasai: I have reservations about saying we can drop prefixes on one feature within a spec.
16:41:56 [Zakim]
16:42:11 [dbaron]
dbaron: I prefer removing prefixes on one thing within a spec than splitting the specs.
16:42:24 [dbaron]
glazou: Splitting specs is a huge burden.
16:43:02 [dbaron]
glazou: This would be done only on consensus within WG.
16:43:16 [dbaron]
?: ?
16:43:45 [dbaron]
Steve: I think what you're saying might be a reasonable experiment; I'd like a one-month announcement of intent to do that on www-style so people outside WG can comment.
16:43:51 [dbaron]
glazou: ok to me
16:44:31 [dbaron]
glazou: I suggest co-chairmen come up with written proposal for WG to discuss at August F2F to implement afterwards if approved.
16:44:39 [dbaron]
ChrisL, etc.: sounds ok
16:45:02 [dbaron]
hold on!
16:45:15 [dbaron]
ACTION glazou: propose ...
16:45:16 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-239 - Propose ... [on Daniel Glazman - due 2010-06-16].
16:45:27 [dbaron]
sylvain: ???
16:45:45 [dbaron]
sylvain: then it will work as the user expects
16:46:05 [dbaron]
glazou: If it's used all over the place, then it should be standardized.
16:46:18 [dbaron]
sylvaing: In that case, I think vendor is responsible for submitting a draft, etc.
16:46:31 [dbaron]
sylvaing: We've been shut down for parsing it, but I don't see anyone proposing it for standardization.
16:46:43 [dbaron]
glazou: Why don't you propose it yourself?
16:46:50 [dbaron]
sylvaing: I'd rather have Apple propose it.
16:47:30 [dbaron]
sylvaing: I asked, haven't heard back.
16:48:12 [Zakim]
16:48:18 [dbaron]
sylvaing: I think we goofed... the reaction was deserved. But I think we need a solution here.
16:48:33 [dbaron]
sylvaing: The long road means this thing being standardized.
16:48:48 [dbaron]
sylvaing: ...short of a new property with new name which I don't think is helpful.
16:49:12 [Zakim]
16:49:12 [dbaron]
glazou: editors have to implement other-prefixed properties; my editor is based on Gecko but I implement -webkit and -o- properties.
16:49:41 [howcome]
howcome has joined #CSS
16:49:50 [dbaron]
sylvaing: Boris suggested some people at Mozilla also thought Moz should just parse it.
16:50:15 [dbaron]
sylvaing: Popularity of iPhone ...
16:50:22 [dbaron]
glazou: People who invented it should have submitted it to WG.
16:50:35 [Zakim]
16:50:50 [dbaron]
glazou: We let browser implement other prefixes or we ask people to come to standardization table.
16:51:02 [dbaron]
bradk: We should strongly discourage browsers implement other prefixes.
16:51:06 [dbaron]
?: ... but ok for editor
16:51:13 [dbaron]
16:51:34 [dbaron]
glazou: Even when standard, prefixed properties all over Web.
16:51:53 [dbaron]
bradk: People wrote prefixed content for WebKit because they found it useful.
16:52:02 [dbaron]
bradk: If IE had prefixed version, people would add that.
16:52:22 [dbaron]
dbaron: only if IE had enough mobile market share. Chicken & egg problem.
16:52:27 [Zakim]
16:52:41 [dbaron]
TabAtkins: example of why monoculture in ... is bad
16:53:01 [dbaron]
sylvaing: People may see justice because MS is recipient, but it's still a problem. I think needs to be specified.
16:53:18 [dbaron]
glazou: Easy to install new browser on desktop; not always the case on mobile.
16:53:58 [dbaron]
SteveZ: It's nice to encourage originator to submit, but you can't force them to.
16:54:31 [dbaron]
SteveZ: That puts you in the position of: if you think the property should be part of standard, someone else should reverse-engineer and submit. Originator is still in the WG and can see it happen.
16:54:43 [dbaron]
glazou: My original suggestion: MS should submit to WG.
16:55:02 [dbaron]
SteveZ: So they do their best shot, and if wrong, the originator will fix in WG.
16:55:23 [dbaron]
sylvaing: So I'd request Apple submit description, if they don't, otherwise I'd submit reverse-engineered spec of it.
16:55:36 [dbaron]
sylvaing: So then it needs to go in a module. What if Apple then objects?
16:55:47 [dbaron]
I think worry about objection if it happens.
16:56:17 [dbaron]
glazou: MS Word implemented many -ms-prefixed properties, you never submitted them, many were useful. It can't just be solved by the chairmen; needs to be agreed by vendors.
16:56:29 [dbaron]
sylvaing: We're talking about something out there with huge market shere.
16:56:38 [dbaron]
glazou: -mso- properties are out on lots of web pages
16:56:45 [dbaron]
16:57:10 [dbaron]
glazou: Only way it can be solved is by agreement between vendors. Otherwise no solution.
16:58:02 [dbaron]
Steve: Sylvain, I think you're doing the right thing. First try to get originator to submit. If that fails, submit yourself. Formal objection doesn't block something, it just causes reconsideration and slower process. Trust the process. You can be in the position of driving it.
16:58:15 [dbaron]
glazou: A formal objection only based on strategy/political reasons is probably not enough to block something.
16:58:34 [dbaron]
Sylvain: I'm trying to think how reasonable it would have been for -mso-* stuff.
16:59:06 [dbaron]
sylvaing: Anybody should be ready for request to document proprietary extension they came up with, or they should accept somebody else documenting and submitting it.
16:59:22 [dbaron]
sylvaing: I think this conflicts with previous discussion where we're trying to get prefixes under control.
16:59:51 [dbaron]
glazou: I don't think it's a problem for the second case. First is more problematic.
16:59:59 [dbaron]
glazou: I think you should submit.
17:00:25 [dbaron]
glazou: Make sure to cc: AC rep of apple (dsinger)
17:01:01 [dbaron]
Topic: other issues
17:01:03 [Zakim]
17:01:13 [dbaron]
fantasai: I'd like to publish LC of backgrounds&borders. If we don't have time ast now, would like scheduled this month.
17:01:19 [dbaron]
howcome: IS box shadow in?
17:01:22 [dbaron]
fantasai: yes
17:01:27 [dbaron]
howcome: let's do it
17:01:30 [dbaron]
fantasai: 3 weeks last call period
17:01:46 [ChrisL]
which wgs are invited to review it?
17:02:06 [dbaron]
fantasai: Open issues for style attr spec raised by SVG
17:02:13 [dbaron]
fantasai: which is what's blocking ... now.
17:02:19 [dbaron]
RESOLUTION: LC of css3-background
17:03:04 [Zakim]
17:03:06 [Zakim]
17:03:08 [Zakim]
17:03:10 [Zakim]
17:03:12 [Zakim]
17:03:16 [Zakim]
17:03:17 [Zakim]
17:03:18 [glazou]
echo + noise + bad bridge = wow
17:03:21 [Zakim]
17:03:27 [dbaron]
I think the echo was when Steve unmuted.
17:03:27 [glazou]
plinss: thanks again for the call-in
17:03:30 [plinss]
17:03:32 [Zakim]
17:03:33 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
17:03:35 [Zakim]
Attendees were SteveZ, +1.650.275.aaaa, bradk, David_Baron, alexmog, fantasai, +1.858.216.aabb, +1.858.216.aacc, plinss, ChrisL, sylvaing, +1.650.253.aadd, tabatkins, [IPcaller]
17:04:41 [dbaron]
So how does one edit ACTION-239 to make it something useful?
17:04:57 [fantasai]
in the Tracker
17:05:04 [fantasai]
17:05:15 [fantasai]
there should be some way to edit it there
17:05:41 [dbaron]
yeah, there is
17:10:31 [ChrisL]
17:10:31 [trackbot]
ACTION-239 -- Daniel Glazman to write proposal for process for marking sections of spec as implementable without prefixes for discussion at August 2010 F2F -- due 2010-08-05 -- OPEN
17:10:31 [trackbot]
17:10:42 [dbaron]
yeah, I fixed it already
17:10:45 [ChrisL]
then hit the link and hit the edit button
17:10:48 [ChrisL]
17:10:56 [dbaron]
it was previously "Daniel Glazman to ..."
17:11:18 [dbaron]
since I couldn't summarize the discussion before and pay attention to the discussion after at the same time
17:11:26 [dbaron]
though I missed the next 30 seconds while trying
17:12:05 [dbaron]
I think it's nice to pause the discussion so actions and resolutions can be recorded properly, though I prefer not to pause for other minuting issues.
17:28:04 [dbaron]
fantasai, do you have a script for making the minutes-and-resolutions emails from IRC logs?
17:48:38 [arronei]
arronei has joined #CSS
18:13:02 [dbaron]
So, my lessons for minuting are: (1) write down ... for anything I say and fill it in later (2) write down ... for all the resolutions and actions and fill them in later
18:13:08 [dbaron]
I think I'd have been ok if I did that.
18:19:25 [tabatkins]
fantasai does have such a script. And yeah, I sorta do similar. Except I usually do make people wait while I minute resolutions/actions.
18:20:05 [tabatkins]
dbaron: I'm looking at css3-cascade. Any idea why the weight of presentational hints was changed?
18:20:21 [dbaron]
tabatkins, from what to what?
18:21:07 [tabatkins]
I haven't looked it up, but iirc 2.1 said they were 0-specificity (lower than *) at the author level. css3-cascade says they "must be given the same weight as the user agent's default style sheet".
18:21:31 [dbaron]
well, 2.1 splits them in half, really
18:22:05 [dbaron]
my guess is that it was just the editor
18:22:38 [tabatkins]
Hmm, can you explain what you mean by "splits them in half"? I don't see that in 6.4.4 of cascade.html
18:22:53 [dbaron]
well, some things are defined to be preshints and some aren't
18:23:04 [dbaron]
since it was historically ambiguous what's UA style sheet and what's preshint
18:23:15 [dbaron]
2.1, iirc, defines it
18:23:30 [dbaron]
There have probably been a lot of edits to 2.1 since css3-cascade forked
18:23:36 [dbaron]
and css3-cascade should most likely be updated to match
18:23:36 [tabatkins]
Oh, I see. It does specifically say that for *other* languages than HTML, preshints are at ua-level.
18:23:50 [dbaron]
and for HTML it defines which things are preshints and which aren't
18:24:00 [tabatkins]
18:24:29 [tabatkins]
The difference should be minimal, I was just curious.
18:58:58 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #CSS
20:07:21 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
21:53:39 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #css
22:09:16 [Curt``]
Curt`` has joined #css
22:49:36 [karl]
karl has joined #CSS
22:54:09 [nimbupani]
nimbupani has joined #css
23:06:07 [miketaylr]
miketaylr has joined #css
23:58:54 [arronei]
arronei has joined #CSS