16:34:27 RRSAgent has joined #CSS 16:34:27 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/11/10-CSS-irc 16:34:32 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:50:19 kennyluck has joined #CSS 16:54:16 Zakim, this will be Style 16:54:16 ok, glazou; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 6 minutes 16:54:20 oyvind has joined #css 16:54:39 Zakim, code? 16:54:39 the conference code is 78953 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), glazou 16:55:02 Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started 16:55:10 + +33.9.50.89.aaaa 16:56:00 Zakim, aaaa is me 16:56:00 +glazou; got it 16:56:30 arronei has joined #CSS 17:00:20 +[Microsoft] 17:00:39 +Bert 17:00:48 johnjan has joined #css 17:01:00 zakim, microsoft is johnjan 17:01:00 +johnjan; got it 17:01:50 +[Microsoft] 17:01:57 + +1.650.253.aabb 17:02:09 zakim, microsoft has me 17:02:09 +arronei; got it 17:02:13 +[Mozilla] 17:02:14 -[Mozilla] 17:02:21 Zakim, aabb is tabatkins 17:02:21 +tabatkins; got it 17:02:30 +[Mozilla] 17:02:34 tabatkin1 has joined #css 17:02:49 Zakim, [Mozilla] is dbaron 17:02:49 +dbaron; got it 17:05:40 +SteveZ 17:05:50 + +47.21.65.aacc 17:05:55 howcome has joined #css 17:05:57 - +47.21.65.aacc 17:06:29 tabatkin1 has joined #css 17:07:18 ScribeNick: tabatkin1 17:07:24 glazou: Main topic is 2.1 and tests 17:07:31 glazou: Did we make any progress since TPAC? 17:07:38 ChrisL has joined #css 17:08:02 johnjan: I think arron got all his tests submitted, so the remaining feedback is fantasai's. 17:08:09 howcome has +47.21.65.aacc 17:08:16 http://wiki.csswg.org/test/css2.1/issues 17:08:31 zakim, howcome has +47.21.65.aacc 17:08:31 sorry, howcome, I do not recognize a party named 'howcome' 17:08:41 nimbupani has joined #css 17:08:42 Zakim, aacc is howcome 17:08:42 sorry, dbaron, I do not recognize a party named 'aacc' 17:08:47 + +39.524.9.aadd 17:09:09 smfr has joined #css 17:09:27 glazou: Do you think the tpac deadlines we set are still doable? 17:09:30 arronei: Yeah. 17:09:46 szilles: Elika's flying this morning and won't be on the call. 17:09:53 Regrets+: Elika 17:10:11 + +1.408.636.aaee 17:10:16 Zakim, aaee is me 17:10:16 +smfr; got it 17:10:27 Zakim, aadd is ChrisL 17:10:27 +ChrisL; got it 17:10:37 johnjan: Next thing is spec issues that came up due to the testing; not specifically spec issues, but may require us to modify the spec. 17:10:42 zakim, +39 is me 17:10:42 sorry, ChrisL, I do not recognize a party named '+39' 17:10:44 glazou: Do we have a list of these issues? 17:11:08 arronei: No. 17:11:37 arronei: Were we going to discuss issue 101? 17:11:37 Zakim, who is noisy? 17:11:37 zakim, who is noisy? 17:11:48 glazou, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: glazou (20%), SteveZ (5%) 17:11:59 ChrisL, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: glazou (52%), tabatkins (4%), SteveZ (18%) 17:12:12 glazou: Let's talk about 101. 17:12:28 http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-101 17:13:17 murakami has joined #css 17:13:50 johnjan: IE9 has implemented rules 3 and 7 per spec now. 17:14:14 + +47.21.65.aaff 17:14:24 johnjan: We feared that, since everyone broke those rules it would have a compat impact, but it turns out that's not true. 17:14:26 Zakim, aaff is howcome 17:14:26 +howcome; got it 17:14:48 dbaron: It would be relatively straightforward to fix, but I'm not particularly comfortable doing so before the FF4 branch. 17:15:02 dbaron: Does the IE mode switching mean you're only testing some subset of pages? 17:15:23 johnjan: This should be all modes. We force standards mode on pages when we test things like this. 17:15:33 dbaron: But you haven't tested quirks? 17:15:44 johnjan: Not sure. 17:15:53 dbaron: Do quirksmode pages still render with a different engine in IE9 beta? 17:16:34 arronei: We currently force the mode into standards mode and then test the page. So a quirksmode page will still get tested in standards. 17:17:20 tabatkin1: If there's no significant compat impact, then I'm comfortable with dropping my proposal and keeping the spec as written. 17:17:28 glazou: So what's the preference of implementors? 17:17:34 johnjan: I'd like to keep the spec as-is. 17:17:51 dbaron: It's sorta hard to tell my final answer until I implement it, but I'm okay with keeping things as-is for now. 17:18:01 smfr: Agree with David. 17:18:19 glazou: So I'm hearing consensus to keep the text as-is and revisit the issue as needed. 17:18:52 RESOLVED: Keep the current spec text for Issue 101, revisit this in the future after other browsers have implemented per spec. 17:18:53 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Nov/0077.html 17:19:02 Topic: Intrinsic widths and heights. 17:19:16 dbaron: There's spec text about intrinsic widths and heights, based I think on a misunderstanding of some language in SVG. 17:19:27 dbaron: I think this led to some bugs in implementations. 17:19:36 I agree, it has been misinterpreted and gives rise to undesirable behaviour 17:19:50 dbaron: In our case we implemented the weird behavior because we thought it's what we needed to do, even though we didn't particularly like the result. 17:19:52 szilles has joined #css 17:20:15 dbaron: I think there are test-cases in the 2.1 suite that rely on this behavior, though I'd have to doublecheck to be sure. 17:20:21 dbaron: maybe replaced-intrinsic-ratio-001.* ? 17:20:36 ChrisL: I talked with elika at tpac and agreed that it's easy to misinterpret. 17:20:53 smfr, yep 17:21:10 tabatkin1: I think I misinterpreted it in the same way as everyone else when talking with Chrome's implementors. 17:21:32 http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/coords.html#IntrinsicSizing 17:22:21 smfr: It seems that Chris is saying the spec is poorly worded, but dbaron is saying we should remove %age width and height. 17:22:46 dbaron: The underlying issue is that the SVG wording at the above url defines intrinsic sizes of SVG in a way that there is never a % intrinsic width or height. 17:23:09 dbaron: So basically we have no use-case whatsoever for %age intrinsic width and height, but we refer to it from the CSS spec, which confused people into thinking there is such a thing. 17:23:14 dbaron: So we should remove it as a concept. 17:23:24 ChrisL: I'm trying to clarify what parts remain and what parts will be cut. 17:23:37 smfr: Seems like we just need some proposed changes to the spec. 17:23:54 dbaron: I sent the initial email in the middle of our discussion with SVG, so I'm not sure how explicit I was. 17:24:09 smfr: I'd have to go back and study that part of the spec and see what Webkit is doing there, but this sounds reasonable. 17:25:13 glazou: Then I suggest we accept dbaron's proposal, pending an email from webkit saying you agree. 17:25:13 action on simon to see if the intrinsic width change is acceptable for Webkit. 17:25:13 Sorry, couldn't find user - on 17:25:17 action simon to see if the intrinsic width change is acceptable for Webkit. 17:25:17 Created ACTION-274 - See if the intrinsic width change is acceptable for Webkit. [on Simon Fraser - due 2010-11-17]. 17:25:25 Topic: Charter update 17:25:37 ChrisL: I sent a link to the charter to glazou, plinss_, and bert. 17:25:49 ChrisL: PLH thought we were preparing the charter for March. 17:26:19 ChrisL: PLH says we can't *say* 2.1 is done until it's actually done. Since we said it would be done in march, he thought we shoudl pursue an extension for March. 17:26:47 ChrisL: And then get a proper charter renew there in march when 2.1 is done. 17:26:53 glazou: And a charter extension is easier, right? 17:27:02 ChrisL: Yes. There's still discussion required, but it's simpler. 17:27:15 glazou: So, who disagrees with a charter extension to finish 2.1? 17:27:42 dbaron: I'd heard that Tantek wanted to get UI published, which would require rechartering since it wasn't in our current charter. 17:27:57 ChrisL: Can that be described as part of another spec? 17:28:05 + +1.858.216.aagg 17:28:07 Bert: It's in the scope section, talking about styling of UI widgets. 17:28:16 zakim, aagg is me 17:28:16 +plinss_; got it 17:28:18 ChrisL: If it's in scope, then there's no need to worry about publishing it. 17:28:31 " It also includes the presentation and behavior of UI widgets." 17:28:45 dbaron: If publishing UI is fine under the current charter, then I'm okay with doing an extension. 17:29:10 RESOLVED: Request an extension of the CSS charter until March. 17:29:28 http://www.w3.org/mid/alpine.DEB.1.10.1011041142350.18200@wnl.j3.bet 17:29:30 Topic: Background shorthand 17:29:46 I think we should have fantasai around for this discussion. 17:30:09 glazou: Reported by Yves Lafon, about having a double slash in the border-image shorthand. 17:30:45 szilles: Let's talk about XXX first. I didn't see an updated draft from Elika, but I think there was an agreement from the WG that everything minus logical properties was acceptable for a fpwd, so we'd like to get that going if there's no objection. 17:30:54 s/XXX/Writing Modes/ 17:31:20 dbaron: You mean all of section 7 in the spec? 17:31:25 szilles: Yes. 17:31:39 dbaron: That seems reasonable to me, but I'd like to give jdaggett a chance to raise something. 17:31:49 dbaron: I'd be fine with a resolution if we give jdaggett a chance to reject. 17:32:09 plinss_: I think jdaggett was there when we resolved, we just deferred the actual resolution so we could see the edits that were being done. 17:32:12 dbaron: Sounds fine. 17:32:24 glazou: So do we wait for the edits or resolve now? 17:33:39 RESOLVED: Publish Writing Modes, minus chapter 7 over logical properties, subject to potential objections from jdaggett. 17:33:59 ACTION dbaron to ping jdaggett about Writing Modes to make sure it all looks okay. 17:33:59 Created ACTION-275 - Ping jdaggett about Writing Modes to make sure it all looks okay. [on David Baron - due 2010-11-17]. 17:34:31 glazou: I think dbaron requested that we push the border-image issue until Elika is here. 17:34:38 Topic: css3-2d-transforms 17:34:39 smfr: About 2d transforms 17:35:03 smfr: First is transforms on inline elements. We don't currently have compat. Gecko has certain confusing behavior about rotating each individual box. 17:35:16 smfr: Conceptually I don't think there's a behavior that's reasonable for users. 17:35:48 smfr: I propose we restrict transforms to only act on things that aren't inlines. 17:36:23 glazou: I have a problem. That wouldn't allow an image to be rotated in a paragraph. 17:36:41 things that aren't non-replaced inlines 17:36:48 tabatkin1: No, the term we'd use to restrict them would still allow transformation of things like inline-blocks and images. 17:37:42 smfr: One use-case is to scale a link on hover, which works fine until the link gets broken across lines. You could just make them inline-block. 17:38:10 tabatkin1: I brought this up at TPAC, and we discussed seeing if we could propertly define a notion of bounding box and transform that. 17:38:39 dbaron: We tried that, but the overflow behavior is hard. 17:39:15 smfr: And I don't think it results in good behavior still - in the link-broken-across-lines case, a scale or skew causes it to grow outside of the element, which is weird. 17:39:43 smfr: I should come up with correct wording so we don't prevent inline-blocks and such. 17:40:17 ACTION simon to send an email to the list with suggested wording for transform change. 17:40:17 Created ACTION-276 - Send an email to the list with suggested wording for transform change. [on Simon Fraser - due 2010-11-17]. 17:40:54 smfr: Next, CSS agreed to move forward on css transforms for CSS, but FXTF wants to work on it as well and have it apply jointly to CSS and SVG. 17:41:37 smfr: These seem to be in conflict - I don't see how the CSSWG can move forward on a 2d transforms spec at the same time as the FXTF creates one that also works in SVG. 17:41:48 smfr: So I'm a little confused about how to proceed. 17:42:14 ChrisL: I'm confused too, becuase I thought we'd already agreed. The FXTF had already evolved into harmony, but then the CSSWG spec seems to be changing independently. 17:42:34 ChrisL: Technically, I believe that the spec would have two conformance classes, one for CSS and one for SVG. 17:43:36 ChrisL: I believe that MS in the meeting was saying they look forward to the joint spec so they can work on both things. 17:44:12 smfr: Webkit doesn't currently necessarily have correct behavior when it comes to CSS transforms applied to SVG. 17:44:37 ChrisL: Right, but I think it's easier to just go ahead and find the joint issues now, rather than try and develop on just one side and then later find incompatibilities. 17:44:50 ChrisL: In other words, I don't think pursuing it jointly will necessarily be slower. 17:45:31 smfr: Right; I just want to make sure that the resolution to move Transforms 2d forward wasn't in conflict with the combined effort. 17:45:37 tabatkin1: It isn't. 17:45:45 ChrisL: What exactly was resolved? 17:45:53 tabatkin1: I'd have to look in the minutes to be certain. 17:48:00 tabatkin1: I don't believe that anyone is ever consciously trying to do something against the FXTF integration. 17:48:06 glazou: Right, definitely to the contrary. 17:48:41 smfr: It's probably up to the FXTF to look at the resolutions the CSSWG made during TPAC and ensure they're integrated properly. 17:49:32 ChrisL: I'm not saying there's any conscious objection, I'm just concerned about accidental incompatibilities. 17:50:36 tabatkin1: Do we want to split Transforms, so we can push forward with the simple stuff and get it unprefixed, while putting the new element-point api in level 4? 17:50:47 ChrisL: Maybe. This sounds like we should talk about it in the FXTF. 17:52:47 tabatkin1: New topic - splitting the display property. Do we want to pursue this? I think we need to, given that we're pushing the new layout modes. 17:52:52 dbaron: I think we need to look at this. 17:53:04 (details need to be worked out) 17:53:05 szilles: Can we get a pointer to the latest proposal? 17:53:19 tabatkin1: Yeah, I'll send something to the list. 17:53:54 -dbaron 17:53:55 glazou: Tab, could you send the minutes quickly? 17:53:59 -howcome 17:54:01 -SteveZ 17:54:01 -glazou 17:54:03 -smfr 17:54:22 -johnjan 17:54:24 -Bert 17:54:27 rrsagent, draft minutes 17:54:27 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/11/10-CSS-minutes.html ChrisL 17:54:27 -[Microsoft] 17:54:29 -plinss_ 17:54:45 -tabatkins 17:54:55 -ChrisL 17:54:57 Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended 17:54:59 Attendees were +33.9.50.89.aaaa, glazou, Bert, johnjan, +1.650.253.aabb, arronei, tabatkins, dbaron, SteveZ, +47.21.65.aacc, +39.524.9.aadd, +1.408.636.aaee, smfr, ChrisL, 17:55:01 ... +47.21.65.aaff, howcome, +1.858.216.aagg, plinss_ 17:55:22 Chris, yt ? 17:55:39 yes 17:55:49 Chair: glazou 17:55:53 rrsagent, draft minutes 17:55:53 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/11/10-CSS-minutes.html ChrisL 17:56:28 see query Chris 17:58:36 ChrisL: see /query 18:02:35 smfr has left #css 18:09:28 tabatkin1 has joined #css 18:43:45 smfr has joined #css 18:43:50 dbaron: still around? 18:44:01 smfr, yep 18:44:28 dbaron: is there a desired rendering for file:///Volumes/InternalData/Development/webkit/OpenSource/WebKitTools/CSSTestSuiteHarness/20101001/html4/replaced-intrinsic-ratio-001.htm as it stands, or is the behavior just undefined 18:44:47 smfr, I think there is a desired rendering, and the test may well be correct. 18:44:51 webkit doesn't resize the