IRC log of CSS on 2010-06-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:14:20 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #CSS
15:14:20 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/06/30-CSS-irc
15:14:26 [glazou]
Zakim, this will be Style
15:14:26 [Zakim]
ok, glazou; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 46 minutes
15:19:28 [glazou]
ok, miracles are rare :-(
15:28:12 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
15:32:03 [glazou]
glazou has joined #css
15:50:49 [plinss_]
plinss_ has joined #css
15:51:29 [glazou]
hi plinss_
15:53:23 [zwol]
zwol has joined #css
15:54:22 [glazou]
Zakim, code?
15:54:22 [Zakim]
the conference code is 78953 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), glazou
15:54:31 [glazou]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:56:29 [nimbupani]
nimbupani has joined #css
15:56:33 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
15:56:39 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
15:56:41 [bradk]
bradk has joined #css
15:56:44 [arronei]
zakim, microsoft is me
15:56:44 [Zakim]
+arronei; got it
15:57:26 [plinss_]
hello
15:57:34 [bradk]
hi
15:57:41 [arronei]
hi
15:58:00 [zwol]
hello
15:58:35 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.275.aaaa
15:58:51 [bradk]
zakim, aaaa is me
15:58:51 [Zakim]
+bradk; got it
15:59:24 [smfr]
smfr has joined #css
15:59:40 [Zakim]
+[Mozilla]
15:59:43 [Zakim]
+ +1.858.216.aabb
15:59:52 [plinss_]
zakim, aabb is [plinss]
15:59:52 [Zakim]
+[plinss]; got it
16:00:16 [zwol]
zakim, mozilla is me
16:00:17 [Zakim]
+zwol; got it
16:00:28 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.636.aacc
16:00:33 [zwol]
(hopefully someone else from mozilla will also turn up :)
16:00:37 [smfr]
Zakim, aacc is me
16:00:37 [Zakim]
+smfr; got it
16:01:02 [plinss_]
zakim, [plinss] has glazou
16:01:02 [Zakim]
+glazou; got it
16:01:55 [Zakim]
+ +1.206.324.aadd
16:02:16 [oyvind]
oyvind has joined #css
16:02:21 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.253.aaee
16:02:25 [tabatkins]
Zakim, aaee is me
16:02:25 [Zakim]
+tabatkins; got it
16:02:29 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #css
16:02:35 [Zakim]
+dsinger
16:02:38 [glazou]
Zakim, aadd is sylvaing
16:02:38 [Zakim]
+sylvaing; got it
16:02:50 [Zakim]
+??P18
16:02:58 [smfr]
echo ... echo ... echo
16:03:27 [smfr]
Zakim, mute glazou
16:03:27 [Zakim]
sorry, smfr, I do not know which phone connection belongs to glazou
16:04:13 [szilles]
szilles has joined #css
16:04:18 [sylvaing]
sylvaing has joined #css
16:06:21 [Zakim]
+SteveZ
16:06:33 [sylvaing]
scribenick: sylvaing
16:06:37 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
16:06:55 [dsinger]
zakim, who is here?
16:06:55 [Zakim]
On the phone I see arronei, bradk, zwol, [plinss], smfr, sylvaing, tabatkins, dsinger, ??P18, SteveZ, [Microsoft]
16:06:57 [Zakim]
[plinss] has glazou
16:06:58 [Zakim]
On IRC I see sylvaing, szilles, dsinger, oyvind, smfr, bradk, nimbupani, zwol, plinss_, glazou, dbaron, RRSAgent, Zakim, karl, Bert, Curt`, anne, miketaylr, arronei, plinss,
16:07:01 [Zakim]
... krijnh, lhnz, trackbot, tabatkins, Hixie, fantasai, jgraham
16:07:18 [Zakim]
+David_Baron
16:07:40 [sylvaing]
topic: CSS2.1 test suite
16:07:57 [dsinger]
zakim, who is making noise?
16:08:07 [sylvaing]
fantasai: hoping to publish today but still working through testcases
16:08:07 [Zakim]
dsinger, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [plinss] (54%), ??P18 (9%), [Microsoft] (49%)
16:08:44 [sylvaing]
glazou: how many test updates do we need to make to account for issue resolutions ?
16:08:54 [sylvaing]
fantasai, arronei: it will take a few days to get caught up
16:09:06 [sylvaing]
glazou: so you're confident we are still on track for a september release
16:09:12 [sylvaing]
arronei, fantasai: yes
16:09:29 [sylvaing]
glazou: I think we should publish the CR and release the test suite together
16:10:00 [sylvaing]
glazou: topic now is implementation reports. when do browser vendors plan on producing them ?
16:10:00 [dethbakin]
dethbakin has joined #css
16:10:33 [sylvaing]
fantasai: modulo spec edit updates, we have all the testcases that will be in the testsuite
16:10:49 [Zakim]
+[Apple]
16:10:56 [dethbakin]
Zakim, Apple has dethbakin
16:10:56 [Zakim]
+dethbakin; got it
16:11:23 [sylvaing]
fantasai: then we can track which testcases have changed so vendors know which to rerun
16:11:45 [sylvaing]
glazou: browser vendors, can you run the tests when the testsuite beta 1 is ready
16:11:51 [sylvaing]
arronei: msft has already started
16:12:04 [Zakim]
+Bert
16:12:12 [sylvaing]
simonfr: for webkit, we can start when the testcases are ready.
16:13:07 [sylvaing]
dbaron: it's hard to say
16:13:36 [sylvaing]
arronei: running the whole thing for one browser takes ~3 days to just record the results
16:14:14 [sylvaing]
smfr: do they need a manual run or are they automated ?
16:14:27 [sylvaing]
fantasai: some are (mozilla's reftests) but the bulk are manual
16:15:05 [sylvaing]
(talk about improving the harness)
16:15:43 [sylvaing]
glazou: next question is about the spec itself. we have made a lot of changes so we would back to LCWD, then CR with the test suite
16:16:02 [sylvaing]
glazou: the open question is the CR period which is usually 6 months, thus preventing us from reaching PR by end of year
16:16:26 [sylvaing]
glazou: note, that is important from a W3C point of view to reach PR by the end of the current charter
16:16:45 [szilles]
+1 for shorter CR
16:16:49 [sylvaing]
fantasai: given that the spec has been CR several times, I don't think we need a 6 months minimum
16:17:04 [sylvaing]
fantasai: we need enough time to generate impl. reports and analyze them
16:17:20 [szilles]
+1 for 3mo period
16:17:32 [sylvaing]
glazou: a 3 months period would be ideal
16:17:56 [sylvaing]
RESOLVED: next css21 CR period is 3 months
16:18:28 [plinss_]
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-26
16:19:33 [sylvaing]
bert: still have to edit it
16:19:42 [sylvaing]
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-53
16:19:55 [sylvaing]
glazou: I'm waiting for answers from Thunderbird and others
16:20:09 [sylvaing]
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-60
16:20:30 [sylvaing]
bert: I haven't done any review yet
16:20:44 [sylvaing]
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-101
16:21:10 [sylvaing]
fantasai: we have the testcases for this one
16:22:39 [sylvaing]
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-110
16:23:27 [sylvaing]
tab: I will try to finish this by next wednesday
16:23:47 [sylvaing]
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-118
16:25:56 [sylvaing]
bert: I can finish this in the next 2 weeks
16:26:08 [Zakim]
-bradk
16:26:11 [sylvaing]
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-120
16:26:32 [sylvaing]
fantasai: I have started and have general definitions. in progress. planning on working on it this week
16:26:42 [sylvaing]
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-129
16:26:51 [sylvaing]
bert: no work on this one yet
16:27:34 [sylvaing]
bert: I can write a proposal this week
16:27:45 [sylvaing]
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-136
16:28:12 [sylvaing]
(editorial, done)
16:28:22 [sylvaing]
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-137
16:28:52 [bradk]
Google voice is not being nice to me
16:28:58 [sylvaing]
fantasai: I would add a sentence to the anonymous block section to have percentages resolved against the containing block before anonymous boxes are generated
16:29:26 [sylvaing]
dbaron: what other things is the idea of the containing block used for ?
16:29:34 [sylvaing]
tabatkins: percentages, positioning...anything else ?
16:29:38 [Zakim]
+bradk
16:30:25 [sylvaing]
dbaron: I suspect that in some cases implementations agree on anonymous boxes not being containing block at all. this might be worth writing testcases
16:31:12 [sylvaing]
(to be revisited next week)
16:31:15 [sylvaing]
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-138
16:32:06 [sylvaing]
tabatkins: fantasai, I and I think authors agree on the proposal. dbaron's preference was more aligned with implementations
16:33:07 [sylvaing]
sylvaing: will it cause testcase failures for implementations ?
16:33:16 [sylvaing]
tabatkins: implementations all disagree today anyway
16:34:45 [dbaron]
I'm trying to remember what other issues were related to this issue from the time we decided to change the spec from what you want to say to what it currently says...
16:34:57 [sylvaing]
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-140
16:34:59 [dbaron]
(I think this is a proposal to change the spec back to what it used to say.)
16:35:55 [sylvaing]
tabatkins: I believe we talked about this at the f2f.
16:36:02 [sylvaing]
(to be followed up)
16:36:08 [sylvaing]
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-142
16:36:58 [sylvaing]
(target next week)
16:37:01 [sylvaing]
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-153
16:37:51 [sylvaing]
dbaron: I think we need to clarify height the way it was in CSS2
16:38:09 [sylvaing]
(reads proposal)
16:38:11 [dbaron]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Jun/0570.html
16:40:01 [sylvaing]
RESOLVED: accept dbaron's proposal for issue-153
16:41:11 [sylvaing]
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-158
16:41:27 [sylvaing]
tabatkins: this really is about empty clearing elements
16:42:02 [sylvaing]
glazou: everyone to review, look again next week
16:42:05 [sylvaing]
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-154
16:43:05 [sylvaing]
arronei: I am working with jdaggett on an image for this. but this could be left to CSS3 Fonts or CSS3 Text
16:43:24 [sylvaing]
fantasai: you can't put some measurements on the same diagram
16:43:42 [sylvaing]
fantasai: it may be easier if it is split in two images
16:44:24 [sylvaing]
glazou: let's defer to next week then
16:44:33 [sylvaing]
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-159
16:44:53 [sylvaing]
fantasai: not done yet. i'll get to it for next week
16:45:01 [sylvaing]
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-166
16:45:18 [sylvaing]
fantasai: not done yet
16:45:27 [sylvaing]
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-167
16:46:05 [sylvaing]
zwol: this one ties back to the tokenizer backup issue; whoever works on the latter should know they're closely related
16:46:39 [zwol]
I can summarize the proposal
16:48:31 [dbaron]
comments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Jun/0658.html
16:49:03 [sylvaing]
(to be continued)
16:49:20 [sylvaing]
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-170
16:50:04 [zwol]
bert: the thing you need to know for the backup issue, is that most of the changes to strings in my proposal were necessitated by \-EOF not having been defined.
16:50:39 [sylvaing]
glazou: authors would not expect these properties to have no effect imo
16:50:39 [zwol]
bert: also, when I wrote that, I didn't know that the prose defines the behavior of EOF within a comment. The grammar should still handle it, but whatever i said about it in that old message is probably wrong.
16:51:36 [sylvaing]
arronei: IE handles min-height but I believe no one handles max-height
16:52:26 [dbaron]
I think gecko handles max-height as I described in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Jun/0444.html
16:53:04 [sylvaing]
smfr: webkit seems to ignore min-height on table cells
16:54:11 [sylvaing]
tabatkins: I agree that I expect min/max-height to do something but I don't know what right now
16:54:28 [sylvaing]
glazou: bradk, tabatkins to review dbaron's proposal
16:54:39 [sylvaing]
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-172
16:54:54 [dbaron]
Er, wait, when I was talking about Gecko's behavior I was thinking about what it does for min/max-width...
16:55:04 [sylvaing]
fantasai: not done yet
16:55:11 [sylvaing]
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-173
16:56:46 [sylvaing]
fantasai: I think the original intention was that linebreaks had been normalized before whitespace processing rules were applied
16:57:25 [sylvaing]
fantasai: that is why CSS3 Text talks about linebreak characters
16:58:03 [glazou]
plinss_: I need to go in 2mns, can you finish for me please ?
16:58:39 [plinss_]
sure
16:58:54 [glazou]
plinss_: thanks, I'm leaving then ; sorry guys, I have to go
17:00:53 [zwol]
an interesting question for folks with the ability to grep the web, would be to see if there are real documents with CR-only (not CRLF) linebreaks in a context where those linebreaks must be honored (<pre>, to first order)
17:01:27 [zwol]
I mean the actual character, not an escape
17:01:53 [fantasai]
I'm quite sure there are
17:02:03 [fantasai]
that was the default line break character on Macs for a long time
17:02:18 [fantasai]
you'd get entire documents authored with only CRs as line breaks
17:02:32 [zwol]
s'true, but not since OSX, which is nearly ten years old now? so it seems like that would have to be very old content
17:02:54 [sylvaing]
IE6 is 10yo too (sigh)
17:03:08 [zwol]
(groan) point taken
17:06:23 [dbaron]
zwol, but that's already handled by normalization that happens during parsing
17:06:32 [dbaron]
zwol, everything gets normalized to LF at parse time
17:06:49 [Zakim]
-smfr
17:06:52 [sylvaing]
plinss: we will rediscuss based on fantasai's new proposal
17:06:53 [Zakim]
-[Apple]
17:06:54 [Zakim]
-dsinger
17:06:54 [Zakim]
-David_Baron
17:06:56 [Zakim]
-arronei
17:06:58 [Zakim]
-Bert
17:06:59 [Zakim]
-sylvaing
17:06:59 [Zakim]
-tabatkins
17:07:01 [Zakim]
-[Microsoft]
17:07:01 [zwol]
dbaron: i was thinking that if we no longer need that for webcompat, we could drop bare-CR from the normalization set
17:07:02 [Zakim]
-SteveZ
17:07:03 [Zakim]
-[plinss]
17:07:04 [Zakim]
-??P18
17:07:13 [dbaron]
zwol, I think we do need it for webcompat.
17:07:16 [Zakim]
-bradk
17:07:43 [zwol]
dbaron: ok, if you and fantasai both think we still need it, i believe you.
17:09:41 [fantasai]
thanks, zwol
17:12:16 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, zwol, in Style_CSS FP()12:00PM
17:12:21 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
17:12:22 [Zakim]
Attendees were arronei, +1.650.275.aaaa, bradk, +1.858.216.aabb, zwol, +1.408.636.aacc, smfr, glazou, +1.206.324.aadd, +1.650.253.aaee, tabatkins, dsinger, sylvaing, SteveZ,
17:12:25 [Zakim]
... [Microsoft], David_Baron, dethbakin, Bert
17:12:44 [dethbakin]
dethbakin has left #css
17:14:57 [zwol]
note to self: quitting ekiga does not hang up the phone
18:42:32 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
18:46:05 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #CSS
19:35:14 [armandoperico]
armandoperico has joined #CSS
19:38:33 [armandoperico]
armandoperico has joined #CSS
19:47:47 [armandoperico]
armandoperico has joined #CSS
20:47:43 [SDP]
SDP has joined #css
21:03:20 [Bert]
Bert has joined #css
21:05:45 [nimbupani]
nimbupani has joined #css