IRC log of CSS on 2010-11-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:15:08 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #CSS
16:15:08 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/11/17-CSS-irc
16:15:13 [glazou]: Zakim, this will be Style
16:15:13 [Zakim]: ok, glazou; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 45 minutes
16:15:19 [glazou]: RRSAgent, make logs public
16:55:00 [Zakim]: Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
16:55:07 [Zakim]: +glazou
16:55:22 [oyvind]: oyvind has joined #css
16:56:03 [Zakim]: +plinss_
16:56:33 [bradk]: bradk has joined #css
16:58:14 [glazou]: Zakim, who is noisy?
16:58:25 [Zakim]: glazou, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: glazou (9%)
16:58:36 [glazou]: hmmm
16:58:45 [glazou]: of course, white noise stops when Zakim listens
16:59:13 [Zakim]: +Tal
16:59:42 [Zakim]: + +1.781.266.aaaa - is perhaps Cathy_Chan?
16:59:51 [Zakim]: -Cathy_Chan?
17:00:07 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
17:00:25 [jdaggett]: zakim, +[IPcaller] is jdaggett
17:00:25 [Zakim]: sorry, jdaggett, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]'
17:00:32 [kojiishi]: kojiishi has joined #css
17:00:38 [jdaggett]: zakim, IPcaller is jdaggett
17:00:38 [Zakim]: +jdaggett; got it
17:00:53 [Zakim]: + +1.415.920.aabb
17:01:05 [Zakim]: + +1.650.275.aacc
17:01:14 [Zakim]: +[Microsoft]
17:01:16 [bradk]: Zakim, aacc is me
17:01:17 [Zakim]: +bradk; got it
17:01:31 [Zakim]: +[Microsoft.a]
17:01:34 [arronei]: zakim, has alexmog and arronei
17:01:39 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'has alexmog and arronei', arronei
17:01:44 [arronei]: zakim, microsoft has alexmog and arronei
17:01:44 [Zakim]: +alexmog, arronei; got it
17:02:02 [JohnJan]: JohnJan has joined #css
17:02:02 [tabatkin1]: tabatkin1 has joined #css
17:02:11 [JohnJan]: zakim, microsoft is johnjan
17:02:11 [Zakim]: +johnjan; got it
17:02:28 [Zakim]: +??P18
17:02:37 [Zakim]: + +1.650.214.aadd
17:02:40 [kojiishi]: zakim, ??P18 is me
17:02:40 [Zakim]: +kojiishi; got it
17:02:40 [tabatkin1]: zakim, aadd is me
17:02:41 [Zakim]: +tabatkin1; got it
17:02:47 [Zakim]: + +1.781.266.aaee - is perhaps Cathy_Chan?
17:03:12 [Zakim]: +Bert
17:03:14 [glazou]: Zakim, aaee is Cathy_Chan
17:03:14 [Zakim]: sorry, glazou, I do not recognize a party named 'aaee'
17:03:24 [smfr]: smfr has joined #css
17:03:36 [glazou]: Zakim, +aaee is Cathy_Chan
17:03:36 [Zakim]: sorry, glazou, I do not recognize a party named '+aaee'
17:03:57 [plinss]: zakim, who is on the phone?
17:03:57 [Zakim]: On the phone I see glazou, plinss_, Tal, jdaggett, +1.415.920.aabb, bradk, johnjan, [Microsoft.a], kojiishi, tabatkin1, Cathy_Chan?, Bert
17:03:58 [tabatkin1]: zakim, aaee is Cathy_Chan
17:03:59 [Zakim]: johnjan has alexmog, arronei
17:03:59 [jdaggett]: zakim, aaee is Cathy_Chan
17:04:00 [Zakim]: sorry, tabatkin1, I do not recognize a party named 'aaee'
17:04:01 [Zakim]: sorry, jdaggett, I do not recognize a party named 'aaee'
17:04:03 [Zakim]: +ChrisL
17:04:06 [Zakim]: +smfr
17:04:22 [jdaggett]: zakim, you're a bugger sometime
17:04:22 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'you're a bugger sometime', jdaggett
17:04:35 [alexmog]: alexmog has joined #css
17:05:31 [tabatkin1]: ScribeNick: tabatkin1
17:05:50 [tabatkin1]: plinss: Any late agenda additions?
17:05:57 [tabatkin1]: arronei: My email about the attr() function.
17:06:31 [tabatkin1]: arronei: At the meeting I thought we discussed marking it at-risk, but I didn't see it in the at-risk list for Values & Units. Are there additional updates pending, or did we decide not to mark it at risk.
17:06:55 [Zakim]: +dsinger
17:07:23 [tabatkin1]: plinss: Doesn't seem that anyone really remembers...
17:07:32 [dsinger_]: dsinger_ has joined #css
17:07:42 [dsinger_]: zakim, mute dsinger
17:07:42 [Zakim]: dsinger should now be muted
17:07:59 [tabatkin1]: arronei: I don't think anyone really implements it, except for a partial impl from us (and maybe FF).
17:08:10 [tabatkin1]: fantasai: There's no harm in marking something at-risk.
17:08:38 [tabatkin1]: RESOLVED: Mark the attr() function in Values & Units as at-risk.
17:08:45 [tabatkin1]: Topic: Getting 2.1 done
17:09:02 [szilles]: szilles has joined #css
17:09:10 [tabatkin1]: plinss: How's work on RC4 coming?
17:09:13 [oyvind]: I believe we (Opera) implement it too
17:09:18 [cathy]: cathy has joined #css
17:09:25 [tabatkin1]: fantasai: I haven't worked on the testsuite since TPAC, so that's my plan today and the rest of the week.
17:09:27 [glazou]: hmmmmm
17:09:31 [plinss]: zakim, aabb is fantasai
17:09:31 [Zakim]: +fantasai; got it
17:09:38 [tabatkin1]: JohnJan: Does this friday still seem like a doable deadline?
17:09:48 [Zakim]: -glazou
17:09:49 [tabatkin1]: fantasai: Not Friday. I think Monday was the deadline? Maybe.
17:09:49 [szilles]: I am getting, "the conference is full, no more parties can be added at this time" message
17:10:05 [tabatkin1]: fantasai: I'm sure I can fix all my tests, but I'm not sure how many Hixie/Moz/etc. tests I'd need to update.
17:10:19 [glazou]: I lost zakim
17:10:30 [tabatkin1]: JohnJan: So the expectation is for vendors to review your changes by Dec 3rd...
17:10:31 [Zakim]: +glazou
17:10:42 [cathy]: zakim, aaaa is me
17:10:42 [Zakim]: sorry, cathy, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
17:10:46 [glazou]: szilles: european bridge worked for me
17:10:49 [tabatkin1]: JohnJan: If you could get them done before Thanksgiving, I could spend some time over thanksgiving weekend doing reviews.
17:10:54 [glazou]: Zakim, aaee is cathy
17:10:54 [Zakim]: sorry, glazou, I do not recognize a party named 'aaee'
17:10:55 [tabatkin1]: plinss: is there anyone else who can help with that?
17:11:00 [glazou]: grr Zakim you're painful
17:11:04 [tabatkin1]: zakim, who is on the phone?
17:11:04 [Zakim]: On the phone I see plinss_, Tal, jdaggett, fantasai, bradk, johnjan, [Microsoft.a], kojiishi, tabatkin1, Cathy_Chan?, Bert, ChrisL, smfr, dsinger (muted), glazou
17:11:07 [Zakim]: johnjan has alexmog, arronei
17:11:15 [glazou]: Zakim, Cathy_Chan? is cathy
17:11:15 [Zakim]: +cathy; got it
17:11:17 [glazou]: aaah
17:11:24 [cathy]: glazou, thanks
17:11:27 [glazou]: np
17:12:06 [tabatkin1]: plinss: Any CSS2.1 issues?
17:12:46 [tabatkin1]: fantasai: The white-space property says linebreaks are only caused by linefeed chars, but that doesn't include the lineseparator character, which isn't collapsed and which has bidi implications.
17:13:05 [fantasai]: s/has/has different/
17:13:31 [tabatkin1]: fantasai: So maybe we should change 2.1 to say that any noncollapsed characters that, per unicode, should force a linebreak, should force a linebreak.
17:13:59 [tabatkin1]: bradk: Any danger that people might accidentally have them in their source?
17:14:24 [tabatkin1]: fantasai: Probably not - they're pretty hard to type.
17:14:28 [szilles]: Bert, I still cannot get on to the phone
17:14:50 [tabatkin1]: tabatkin1: It feels like any breakage that would occur would be extremely minor.
17:15:20 [tabatkin1]: tabatkin1: Changing this would mean we need new tests?
17:15:21 [Bert]: szilles, we have 15 slots full. I think zakim won't allow any more :-(
17:15:30 [tabatkin1]: fantasai: I'm already using them in a bidi testcase right now, so it's already there.
17:15:47 [fantasai]: szilles, send me your phone number
17:16:12 [tabatkin1]: plinss: So are we willing to make that change?
17:16:56 [Zakim]: -dsinger
17:17:08 [dsinger_]: dsinger_ has joined #css
17:17:12 [tabatkin1]: tabatkin1: I'm probably not in a good position to make the decision, but since we already are testing for it incidentally, I'm okay with it.
17:17:19 [tabatkin1]: plinss: Do we have any passes on the relevant tests?
17:17:21 [tabatkin1]: fantasai: No.
17:18:12 [Zakim]: +SteveZ
17:18:27 [tabatkin1]: fantasai: I think it's important to have going forward, because HTML5 needs the disctinction in linebreaking characters to handle some of its bidi bugs.
17:18:53 [tabatkin1]: plinss: If nobody passes a relevant test yet for it I'm uncomfortable actually requiring it, but I'm okay with leaving it undefined.
17:19:39 [tabatkin1]: tabatkin1: Elika, are you okay with changing the text to explicitly say that the linebreaking behavior of other unicode linebreaking characters is explicitly undefined?
17:19:48 [tabatkin1]: fantasai: Yes. It makes it hard to test some bidi things, but oh well.
17:20:08 [tabatkin1]: RESOLVED: Make it explicit in CSS2.1 that other unicode linebreaking characters have undefined linebreaking behavior.
17:20:41 [tabatkin1]: plinss: With RC3 of our testsuite, we need 800 more passes. 700 or so them we just need more results for.
17:20:49 [tabatkin1]: s/700/770/
17:21:21 [plinss]: http://test.csswg.org/harness/results?s=CSS21_%HTML_RC3&f=29
17:21:22 [tabatkin1]: tabatkin1: As soon as RC4 publishes I'll do another full IR for Chrome.
17:21:36 [tabatkin1]: plinss: What bothers me is that we have about 100 tests that nobody passes right now.
17:22:14 [tabatkin1]: plinss: So this worries me. We need to determine if the tests are wrong, or if impls are wrong, or change the spec, or argue that we can live with this failure and defend it somehow.
17:22:33 [tabatkin1]: arronei: I know a fair number of the cases hinge on RC4 updates, and browsers pass after the tests are fixed.
17:23:02 [tabatkin1]: JohnJan: I think we also need to look at ones that only 1 browser has passed.
17:23:17 [dbaron]: dbaron has joined #css
17:23:42 [tabatkin1]: smfr: One criteria on impl is that the build must be at least a month old. Does this mean that if we make a change to fix a pass, we have to wait a month?
17:24:17 [tabatkin1]: plinss: One of the IR requirements is that the feature must have been stable for at least a month, to guard against a custom nightly to pass a test that doesn't make it into main stream.
17:25:00 [tabatkin1]: plinss: That doesn't affect whether or not we can use super-recent builds, it just means we'll have to wait a month to report the results.
17:25:20 [howcome]: howcome has joined #css
17:25:24 [tabatkin1]: plinss: It's really just a restriction meant to keep people from gaming the system.
17:25:36 [dbaron]: Sorry for being late. Zakim won't let me in to the call.
17:25:52 [dbaron]: The first time it said the conference is full
17:25:54 [tabatkin1]: plinss: arron, do you know how many blocking tests have been changed?
17:25:57 [dbaron]: and the rest it said the passcode isn't valid.
17:25:58 [tabatkin1]: arronei: Not off the top of my head.
17:26:18 [dbaron]: Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:26:18 [Zakim]: On the phone I see plinss_, Tal, jdaggett, fantasai, bradk, johnjan, [Microsoft.a], kojiishi, tabatkin1, cathy, Bert, ChrisL, smfr, glazou, SteveZ
17:26:20 [Zakim]: johnjan has alexmog, arronei
17:26:32 [tabatkin1]: plinss: I'd like to get this list on the wiki so people can start doing analysis.
17:26:39 [tabatkin1]: JohnJan: Seems right to me.
17:27:16 [tabatkin1]: plinss: So who can commit to making the page?
17:27:25 [tabatkin1]: arronei: I was going to start working on that data anyway, so I can work on that page.
17:27:35 [dbaron]: Elika conferenced me in to the call now
17:27:45 [tabatkin1]: arronei: I can get at least halfway today - definitely all the tests listed, not necessarily all of them with details.
17:27:55 [tabatkin1]: JohnJan: That would be a great start.
17:28:01 [fantasai]: can someone conference in howcome?
17:28:10 [tabatkin1]: plinss: Ideally by next week I'd like to have a list of testcases where we need to start discussing spec changes.
17:28:24 [Bert]: zakim, fantasai also has dbaron
17:28:24 [Zakim]: +dbaron; got it
17:28:28 [arronei]: http://wiki.csswg.org/test/css2.1/results
17:29:07 [tabatkin1]: plinss: So everyone dig into this and start reporting status for these tests.
17:29:39 [tabatkin1]: TOPIC: Percentage intrinsic widths and heights
17:29:51 [glazou]: fantasai: UUUUH ?
17:29:56 [tabatkin1]: plinss: Last week we wanted to remove percentage intrinsic widths and heights, but were waiting for feedback from Apple.
17:30:14 [glazou]: Bert: seriously ??? 15 slots only on US bridge ?
17:30:14 [tabatkin1]: plinss: We got that now, and they're okay with it. Any other objections before we resolve?
17:30:23 [glazou]: d'oh
17:30:37 [tabatkin1]: RESOLVED: Remove the concept of percentage widths and heights from CSS2.1.
17:30:47 [dbaron]: s/percentage widths/percentage intrinsic widths/
17:31:06 [tabatkin1]: Topic: clip() logical vs physical
17:31:41 [tabatkin1]: arronei: clip in the spec is defined logically, so in other writing modes it will rotate, but all impls instead do physical.
17:31:58 [Bert]: zakim, mute me
17:31:58 [Zakim]: Bert should now be muted
17:32:15 [tabatkin1]: arronei: I think we just need to change the spec for it.
17:32:35 [tabatkin1]: arronei: If we changed impls to be logical it would probably break spriting techniques.
17:33:02 [tabatkin1]: dbaron: I think the original intention was to make it logical wrt overflow, or something like that.
17:33:14 [tabatkin1]: dbaron: But there's been a ton of change in this section, so I'm not even sure anymore.
17:33:37 [Bert]: zakim, bert also has howcome
17:33:44 [Zakim]: +howcome; got it
17:33:44 [Yves]: Yves has joined #css
17:34:06 [tabatkin1]: smfr: I talked to Hyatt and he thinks it should by physical.
17:34:21 [Bert]: zakim, unmute me
17:34:21 [Zakim]: Bert should no longer be muted
17:34:23 [tabatkin1]: RESOLVED: Update definition of clip to be physical in nature.
17:34:40 [tabatkin1]: arronei: And now we'll have to think in CSS3 if we want to define a logical version. ^_^
17:35:11 [tabatkin1]: plinss: Do we have tests currently testing for this behavior?
17:35:36 [tabatkin1]: arronei: No. I created a test for the mail, but we don't actually have a test testing for logical/physical. I can convert the test I wrote into one for the testsuite.
17:35:55 [tabatkin1]: plinss: If it falls out of your work, do it; I was just wondering if there were any tests needing to be changed.
17:36:17 [tabatkin1]: Topic: Double slash in border-image
17:36:24 [glazou]: Yves: please
17:36:36 [Zakim]: -ChrisL
17:36:46 [glazou]: cool
17:37:02 [glazou]: thanks ChrisL
17:37:17 [Zakim]: + +1.617.324.aaff
17:37:24 [tabatkin1]: zakim, aaff is Yves
17:37:24 [Zakim]: +Yves; got it
17:38:02 [Yves]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Nov/0078.html
17:38:18 [tabatkin1]: Yves: The issue is the same as the previous one for background shorthand.
17:38:37 [tabatkin1]: Yves: In background, it was possible previously to have a background starting with a /.
17:38:56 [tabatkin1]: Yves: Now in border-image there is the possibility of having two /s in a row with no content between them.
17:39:46 [tabatkin1]: Yves: Since / is used as a separator, it means that if you have a parser you'll get nothing in between, which causes a problem in the grammar.
17:39:58 [tabatkin1]: tabatkin1: That's just an empty group, right?
17:40:23 [tabatkin1]: Yves: It causes a loop in grammar-based parsers. I suggest a value to indicate that there is supposed to be nothing in the group.
17:40:41 [tabatkin1]: dbaron: I don't understand the problem with the slashes. Is it a technical problem, or is just something you don't like to look at?
17:40:51 [tabatkin1]: Yves: In CSS2.1 it says it's a separator.
17:41:02 [tabatkin1]: dbaron: What part of CSS says it's a separator?
17:41:26 [tabatkin1]: Bert: In the non-normative appendix only. In the normative grammar it's just a token.
17:41:37 [tabatkin1]: dbaron: So I don't believe this is really a grammar issue.
17:41:48 [tabatkin1]: Bert: Depends on how strongly you believe in Appendix G.
17:41:54 [tabatkin1]: fantasai: We did mark it non-normative.
17:42:15 [dbaron]: I think Appendix G was also intended to be for CSS 2 and not forward-compatible.
17:42:23 [tabatkin1]: Bert: It might be easy to use a different separator.
17:42:30 [tabatkin1]: fantasai: The current syntax has already hit CR.
17:43:15 [tabatkin1]: Yves: I think that what you want is not really a separator, but rather something that indicates the next section is not what you would have expected, but a group higher up.
17:43:40 [tabatkin1]: Yves: If it was not a separator, but some other character without that meaning in CSS2.1, it would be better.
17:44:32 [tabatkin1]: Yves: This issue was raised when we talked about background properties; it's been around for a while. It's just that only background was fixed at the time, not this one too.
17:45:19 [sylvaing]: I'd rather not change background syntax now
17:45:28 [tabatkin1]: Bert: I agree it looks kind of ugly to have two slashes, but I don't think it's a fundamental problem.
17:45:31 [dbaron]: I think the "implementability concern" would also mean we'd need to remove most of css3-selectors.
17:45:34 [Yves]: not background, border-image
17:46:44 [tabatkin1]: Yves: It's an issue if you want to pass both 2.1 and 3.
17:47:18 [tabatkin1]: fantasai: Why can't you change the parser to parse the / per CSS3? What in 2 wouldn't you be able to parse by making that change?
17:47:21 [fantasai]: s/pass/parse/
17:47:38 [tabatkin1]: Yves: Basically it would mean changing most of it.
17:47:49 [tabatkin1]: Bert: Only one place uses that right now, the font shorthand?
17:48:09 [tabatkin1]: sylvaing: Why do we need one parser that can read both, as opposed to two parsers?
17:48:16 [jdaggett]: howcome: maybe we should have double-slash comments?
17:48:44 [tabatkin1]: Yves: That's the code I have right now, and there's no version indicator in CSS to switch off of.
17:48:47 [ChrisL]: sylvaing - because there is no verson ihfo in css files, and they can contain a mix of syntaxes from different levels
17:49:04 [tabatkin1]: bradk: You can't just parse "//" as "/initial/"?
17:50:11 [sylvaing]: ChrisL, so what ? you can run it through 21 and do 3 if that fails.
17:50:53 [tabatkin1]: tabatkin1: So what's the problem again? This is a CSS3 property, not a 2.1 property. Why does it matter?
17:51:45 [tabatkin1]: Yves: The way the parser/grammar works, it doesn't know this is a CSS3 property yet and so just registers a general parse error.
17:52:04 [tabatkin1]: dbaron: I think the problem is the parser using Appendix G.
17:52:24 [Zakim]: -smfr
17:52:35 [tabatkin1]: Yves: If the / isn't used in CSS2.1 I can deal with this.
17:52:41 [smfr]: smfr has left #css
17:52:45 [tabatkin1]: fantasai: it's used only in the font shorthand.
17:52:57 [tabatkin1]: Yves: I can see about that, but I'd like it removed from the Appendix too.
17:53:06 [ChrisL]: @version 2.1;
17:53:15 [Bert]: :-)
17:53:27 [glazou]: plinss: move to next topic ?
17:53:37 [tabatkin1]: Bert: We talked about removing the appendix entirely, because it confuses people.
17:53:42 [tabatkin1]: plinss: So any quick wrapup on this?
17:54:07 [fantasai]: or something similar
17:54:27 [Bert]: (Anybody has engineers with free time to help update the validator?...)
17:54:50 [tabatkin1]: tabatkin1: The fix is just to change Appendix G, right? That doesn't affect anything else in CSS.
17:55:31 [glazou]: ChrisL: this level/version thing plagues us
17:56:01 [ChrisL]: glazou, i agree it does
17:56:32 [tabatkin1]: dbaron: The point of Appendix G is *just* for CSS2.1.
17:56:35 [glazou]: plinss: let's move on for jdaggett 's sake :)
17:56:37 [ChrisL]: and it would be lovely to tie the validator to css-beijing or snapshot or whatever
17:56:52 [tabatkin1]: tabatkin1: [stuff about it only mattering for validating CSS2.1]
17:56:56 [glazou]: jdaggett: slash
17:57:07 [glazou]: jdaggett: or your nights ?
17:57:11 [Zakim]: -cathy
17:57:15 [tabatkin1]: fantasai: I suggest *not* using the Appendix G grammar, and just changing the grammar the impl is using to match what you need.
17:57:33 [arronei]: arronei has joined #CSS
17:57:57 [tabatkin1]: Yves: i can look at that, but I'd want appendix G grammar to b eupdated for forwards-compatibility.
17:58:20 [glazou]: ROFL
17:58:31 [glazou]: TIME !!!
17:58:41 [tabatkin1]: fantasai: What we're trying to tell you is the appendix G is *not* meant to be a forwards-compatible grammar, it's *only* for CSS2.1. The more restrictive and specialized for 2.1 it is, the better it is at its goal. That is not your goal, that's okay.
17:59:08 [tabatkin1]: plinss: let's take the rest of this discussion to email.
17:59:12 [Zakim]: -Yves
17:59:14 [tabatkin1]: Topic: Transition requests
17:59:41 [fantasai]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2010OctDec/0180.html
18:00:16 [tabatkin1]: plinss: Elika entered 4 requests. First was 2007 snapshot transition to CR.
18:01:11 [tabatkin1]: RESOLVED: Push 2007 snapshot to CR.
18:01:12 [ChrisL]: conferenc eis restricted at this time
18:01:14 [tabatkin1]: plinss: B&B
18:01:17 [Yves]: Yves has left #css
18:01:33 [tabatkin1]: plinss: Yves issue is the only one that was raised, apparently?
18:01:38 [tabatkin1]: fantasai: There were others raised.
18:01:39 [fantasai]: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-background/issues-lc-2010
18:01:44 [ChrisL]: Can't rejoin. I support the publication requests
18:01:49 [tabatkin1]: plinss: The others were all addressed?
18:01:50 [tabatkin1]: fantasai: Yeah.
18:02:13 [tabatkin1]: plinss: So for the // issue am I hearing that we aren't accepting it as an issue?
18:02:22 [tabatkin1]: fantasai: It's past the deadline, but I can add it to the list.
18:02:36 [tabatkin1]: RESOLVED: Don't change the border-image shorthand.
18:02:47 [dbaron]: Is there a draft of the 2010 snapshot somewhere?
18:02:49 [tabatkin1]: RESOLVED: Proceed with publishing B&B to CR.
18:03:02 [fantasai]: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-2010/
18:03:03 [szilles]: +1 to publish B&B
18:03:07 [fantasai]: sorry, forgot to send it to the list
18:03:13 [tabatkin1]: plinss: Now, 2010 snapshot as FPWD. Everyone okay with that?
18:03:26 [tabatkin1]: RESOLVED: Publish 2010 snapshot as FPWD.
18:03:29 [tabatkin1]: plinss: Now, Writing Modes.
18:03:38 [Zakim]: -glazou
18:03:42 [tabatkin1]: howcome: In Opera I'm seeing an end-of-comment marker before the end of section 7.
18:04:04 [tabatkin1]: howcome: So I'm not certain if something is supposed to be commented and is not, or what?
18:04:34 [Zakim]: -tabatkin1
18:04:45 [dbaron]: I see end-of-comment markers both right before section 7 and in the middle of 6.1
18:05:41 [fantasai]: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-writing-modes/Overview.src.html
18:06:07 [jdaggett]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Nov/0151.html
18:06:21 [dbaron]: howcome: 6.2.5 (?) is different lengths in Opera and Firefox
18:06:38 [dbaron]: jdaggett: <describes above email>
18:07:01 [Zakim]: -Tal
18:07:12 [dbaron]: jdaggett: section 4.1 (especially second bullet point), section 6.1
18:07:38 [dbaron]: jdaggett: it would be good to say: In CSS 2.1 we have sections 10.3 (widths) and 10.6 (heights), and those algorithms are inverted.
18:08:03 [dbaron]: jdaggett: I see a lot of things that are weird editorially. I see references to old writing-mode values (section 2 ex. 1, several in 6.1.1)
18:08:10 [dbaron]: jdaggett: Also, I think list of references is needed.
18:08:39 [Zakim]: -bradk
18:08:43 [dbaron]: jdaggett: Also, this and grid alignment spec behave very strangely with wide screen; illustrations fall behind examples. Was default style sheet changed?
18:08:53 [dbaron]: fantasai: I just made it float.
18:08:59 [dbaron]: jdaggett: Seems to be causing a problem.
18:09:11 [dbaron]: jdaggett: I'd like to see more text that points people in the right direction of what calculations you're talking about.
18:09:24 [dbaron]: fantasai: I can list those as examples but I can't be exhaustive.
18:09:35 [dbaron]: jdaggett: I'm not looking for exhaustive list in FPWD.
18:09:56 [dbaron]: jdaggett: But I think a lot of people have been confused about whether we're doing logical properties are not, and I think the current text is confusing about answering that confusion.
18:10:13 [dbaron]: jdaggett: I think referring to CSS 2.1 spec and saying which algorithms are switched, etc., would help.
18:10:31 [dbaron]: fantasai: Would adding ... ?
18:10:49 [fantasai]: "For example, the rules in 10.x are used to calculate the height instead of the width, and the rule sin 10.y are used to calculate the width instead of the height"
18:11:12 [dbaron]: jdaggett: There are places where things don't say how it relates to 2.1; I don't think it needs to be more than one sentence. But I think there are cases where the used value and computed value can be confused.
18:11:47 [dbaron]: fantasai: (reads)
18:12:10 [dbaron]: fantasai: I can give examples; can't say these are the only calculations needed to consider.
18:13:11 [dbaron]: jdaggett: I think the spec isn't really capturing the background material. It would help if the first section (introduction or section 2) gave more real documentation on what it is we're trying to solve.
18:13:34 [dbaron]: jdaggett: Are we trying to solve vertical text, or also solve cases of mixtures of scripts in various writing modes (which makes problem more compicated).
18:13:51 [dbaron]: fantasai: I could copy examples from UTN22 into the spec if necessary.
18:14:07 [dbaron]: jdaggett: That would be great... to copy enough examples to show the complexity.
18:14:44 [Zakim]: -[Microsoft.a]
18:14:49 [Zakim]: -johnjan
18:14:50 [Zakim]: -jdaggett
18:14:51 [Zakim]: -kojiishi
18:14:54 [Zakim]: -plinss_
18:15:12 [Zakim]: -Bert
18:15:24 [Zakim]: -SteveZ
18:15:32 [fantasai]: Bert, your preprocessor is causing problems here: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fdev.w3.org%2Fcsswg%2Fcss3-writing-modes%2FOverview.html&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0
18:15:36 [fantasai]: The source document validates.
18:15:47 [Zakim]: -fantasai
18:15:49 [Zakim]: Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
18:15:51 [Zakim]: Attendees were glazou, plinss_, Tal, +1.781.266.aaaa, jdaggett, +1.415.920.aabb, +1.650.275.aacc, bradk, alexmog, arronei, johnjan, +1.650.214.aadd, kojiishi, tabatkin1,
18:15:54 [Zakim]: ... +1.781.266.aaee, Bert, ChrisL, smfr, dsinger, fantasai, cathy, SteveZ, dbaron, howcome, +1.617.324.aaff, Yves
18:15:57 [Bert]: (I added a workaround and re-generated.)
18:16:26 [Bert]: (Actually... not yet. There are also bib entries missing.)
18:18:51 [Bert]: What is "UTN22"?
18:19:00 [fantasai]: http://unicode.org/notes/tn22/
18:23:25 [tabatkin1]: tabatkin1 has joined #css
18:24:14 [Bert]: OK, seems it was generated correctly now.
18:24:39 [Bert]: I'll put handling of [[biblioref]] inside comments on the wishlist...
18:27:33 [fantasai]: Bert: can't you just ignore them?
18:28:31 [Bert]: I don't remember how that code works, but I guess not. Otherwise it would have been done.
18:30:57 [Bert]: It seems the program doesn't actually parse HTML, it just looks for "[[".
18:31:21 [fantasai]: ah
18:32:16 [Bert]: But it does have an option to not create *extra* comments.
18:32:22 [Bert]: I'll enable that.
18:32:24 [fantasai]: heh
18:32:26 [fantasai]: ok
18:33:24 [Bert]: That option exists, because by default the program can be run again on its own output, thanks to those extra comments.
18:33:47 [Bert]: But the output in this case doesn't have to be processed again.
18:36:34 [kojiishi]: kojiishi has joined #css
19:02:45 [tabatkin1]: tabatkin1 has joined #css
19:04:06 [dbaron]: fantasai, Am I allowed to fix a bug in a test I wrote that's in approved/ ?
19:04:22 [dbaron]: (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2010Nov/0064.html )
19:06:54 [dbaron]: Well, I'll update it and I guess if somebody says more process needs to happen, they can do so...
19:10:55 [fantasai]: dbaron: yes
19:11:02 [fantasai]: dbaron: just make sure someone reviews the change
19:11:08 [dbaron]: fantasai, well, I just fixed it
19:11:18 [dbaron]: fantasai, I think you're probably the most appropriate reviewer given the subject matter...
19:11:32 [fantasai]: dbaron: just let me know which test then :)
19:11:58 [dbaron]: fantasai, the two listed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2010Nov/0064.html
19:12:01 [fantasai]: ok
19:52:43 [fantasai]: dbaron: r+
19:54:11 [dbaron]: fantasai, should I note that somewhere?
19:54:21 [fantasai]: it's fine
19:54:57 [fantasai]: dbaron: I mainly just want to make sure any substantive changes to the approved testcases get looked over by someone other than the person making the change
20:04:23 [fantasai]: dbaron: I guess you could write a reply to your mailing list message saying that you fixed the tests, and include r+ there
20:04:36 [fantasai]: dbaron: Having the note that the problem was addressed helps me figure out what still needs fixing
20:05:06 [fantasai]: tabatkin1: are you ready to go live with that system next week?
20:05:14 [fantasai]: tabatkin1: It would be nice to switch to a proper tracking system for RC4
20:06:31 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #CSS