IRC log of CSS on 2010-12-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:41:54 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #CSS
16:41:54 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:41:59 [glazou]
Zakim, this will be Style
16:41:59 [Zakim]
ok, glazou; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 19 minutes
16:42:03 [glazou]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:50:53 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
16:52:06 [dsinger_]
dsinger_ has joined #css
16:53:19 [Fred_Furlong]
zakim, who is here?
16:53:19 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has not yet started, Fred_Furlong
16:53:20 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Fred_Furlong, dbaron, RRSAgent, Zakim, glazou, bradk, sylvaing, nimbupani, lhnz, kennyluck, dsinger, arronei, karl, plinss_, shepazu, TabAtkins, CSSWG_LogBot, krijnh,
16:53:22 [Zakim]
... plinss, jgraham, fantasai, gsnedders, trackbot, Bert, Hixie
16:54:10 [kojiishi]
kojiishi has joined #css
16:54:22 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
16:54:29 [Zakim]
16:55:02 [danielweck]
danielweck has joined #css
16:55:10 [Fred_Furlong]
Zakim, dsinger is Fred_Furlong
16:55:10 [Zakim]
+Fred_Furlong; got it
16:55:24 [danielweck]
Zakim, danielweck is Daniel WEc
16:55:24 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'danielweck is Daniel WEc', danielweck
16:56:03 [Zakim]
+ +
16:56:09 [glazou]
Zakim, aaaa is me
16:56:09 [Zakim]
+glazou; got it
16:56:58 [glazou]
glazou has joined #css
16:57:35 [oyvind]
oyvind has joined #css
16:57:44 [Zakim]
16:57:50 [arronei]
zakim, microsoft has me
16:57:50 [Zakim]
+arronei; got it
16:58:16 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.920.aabb
16:58:17 [Zakim]
+ +1.858.216.aacc
16:58:26 [Zakim]
16:58:28 [plinss_]
zakim, aacc is me
16:58:29 [Zakim]
+plinss_; got it
16:59:17 [Zakim]
16:59:22 [plinss_]
zakim, aabb is fantasai
16:59:22 [Zakim]
+fantasai; got it
16:59:25 [Fred_Furlong]
Zakim, mute me
16:59:25 [Zakim]
Fred_Furlong should now be muted
17:00:00 [Zakim]
+ +200000aadd
17:00:01 [Zakim]
17:00:07 [smfr]
smfr has joined #css
17:00:23 [glazou]
the european bridge is under severe influence
17:00:38 [Zakim]
17:00:53 [Zakim]
- +200000aadd
17:01:07 [johnjan]
johnjan has joined #css
17:01:18 [Zakim]
17:01:18 [johnjan]
Zakim, Microsoft is johnjan
17:01:21 [Zakim]
+johnjan; got it
17:01:29 [cesar]
cesar has joined #css
17:01:42 [Zakim]
17:01:43 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.636.aaee
17:01:50 [smfr]
Zakim, aaee is me
17:01:50 [Zakim]
+smfr; got it
17:02:09 [Zakim]
17:02:13 [Fred_Furlong]
zakim, who is here?
17:02:13 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Fred_Furlong (muted), johnjan, fantasai, plinss_, [Microsoft.a], glazou, [Microsoft.aa], David_Baron, ??P21, smfr, [IPcaller]
17:02:15 [Zakim]
johnjan has arronei
17:02:16 [Zakim]
On IRC I see cesar, johnjan, smfr, oyvind, glazou, danielweck, kojiishi, Fred_Furlong, dbaron, RRSAgent, Zakim, bradk, sylvaing, nimbupani, lhnz, kennyluck, dsinger, arronei, karl,
17:02:22 [Zakim]
... plinss_, shepazu, TabAtkins, CSSWG_LogBot, krijnh, plinss, jgraham, fantasai, gsnedders, trackbot, Bert, Hixie
17:02:23 [kojiishi]
zakim, ipcaller is me
17:02:25 [Zakim]
+kojiishi; got it
17:02:46 [szilles]
szilles has joined #css
17:03:04 [danielweck]
Zakim, ??P21 is danielweck
17:03:04 [Zakim]
+danielweck; got it
17:03:17 [szilles]
Can we add CSS-Beijing-2007 to the agenda
17:03:25 [danielweck]
zakim, who is here?
17:03:25 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Fred_Furlong (muted), johnjan, fantasai, plinss_, [Microsoft.a], glazou, [Microsoft.aa], David_Baron, danielweck, smfr, kojiishi
17:03:27 [Zakim]
johnjan has arronei
17:03:28 [Zakim]
On IRC I see szilles, cesar, johnjan, smfr, oyvind, glazou, danielweck, kojiishi, Fred_Furlong, dbaron, RRSAgent, Zakim, bradk, sylvaing, nimbupani, lhnz, kennyluck, dsinger,
17:03:32 [Zakim]
... arronei, karl, plinss_, shepazu, TabAtkins, CSSWG_LogBot, krijnh, plinss, jgraham, fantasai, gsnedders, trackbot, Bert, Hixie
17:03:44 [Fred_Furlong]
Zakim, Fred_Furlong is dsinger
17:03:44 [Zakim]
+dsinger; got it
17:04:51 [Zakim]
+ +47.23.69.aaff
17:05:03 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.275.aagg
17:05:20 [bradk]
Zakim, aagg is me
17:05:20 [Zakim]
+bradk; got it
17:05:30 [plinss_]
zakim, aaff is howcome
17:05:31 [Zakim]
+howcome; got it
17:05:57 [fantasai]
ScribeNick: fantasai
17:06:23 [Zakim]
+ +34.60.940.aahh
17:06:24 [fantasai]
Peter: Any other agenda items?
17:06:35 [fantasai]
Arron: I have one about tracking Bert's edits
17:06:45 [cesar]
Zakim, aahh is me.
17:06:45 [Zakim]
+cesar; got it
17:07:19 [fantasai]
Sylvain: PFWG?
17:07:27 [fantasai]
Topic: PFWG comment on css3-background
17:07:37 [fantasai]
glazou: Did my action item to send official response to PFWG.
17:07:48 [fantasai]
glazou: We should hear back from them
17:08:06 [Zakim]
17:08:53 [Zakim]
17:09:16 [fantasai]
glazou: A year ago we discussed whethers editors should bring everything back to the WG concall
17:09:26 [fantasai]
glazou: or can the editors handle some things themselves
17:09:41 [fantasai]
glazou: Apparently this is an issue for some other working groups.
17:09:52 [fantasai]
glazou: When a comment comes official from a WG, it should go back to the conference call.
17:10:08 [fantasai]
glazou: Otherwise we have no means to say the answer of a given member is the position of the WG.
17:10:39 [fantasai]
glazou: It's a little change from what we decided awhile ago, but it seems necessary.
17:10:53 [szilles]
Please add css-beijing-2007 to the agenda
17:11:09 [fantasai]
Bert: I don't think it means the answer has to come from the chair, but it has to be clear that it comes from the WG.
17:11:35 [howcome]
howcome has joined #CSS
17:11:56 [fantasai]
Steve: Would it suffice ...
17:12:04 [fantasai]
glazou: There's a thread, and lots of responses.
17:12:07 [dsinger__]
dsinger__ has joined #css
17:12:19 [fantasai]
glazou: Somehow have to designate that one of them is the official position of the WG.
17:12:27 [dsinger__]
Zakim, unmute dsinger
17:12:27 [Zakim]
dsinger should no longer be muted
17:12:36 [fantasai]
Steve: Sometimes we have a conclusion, but don't have exact wording.
17:12:59 [fantasai]
Steve: Sometimes it's useful to designate an existing response as official.
17:13:12 [fantasai]
glazou: We'll have to decide on a case-by-case basis.
17:15:57 [plinss_]
zakim, who is noisy?
17:16:06 [Zakim]
17:16:07 [Zakim]
plinss_, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: SteveZ (8%), dsinger (29%), glazou (69%)
17:16:17 [Zakim]
17:16:22 [arronei]
arronei has joined #CSS
17:16:52 [fantasai]
fantasai: I think if we're dealing with PFWG, we have to have every single email response be an official WG response, whether it's asking a question or suggesting an edit or what. But with i18n or SVG, we might not to be quite as formal.
17:17:17 [fantasai]
glazou: We need to have a WG position on each cross-WG issue, in case another WG has the same comment.
17:17:23 [fantasai]
Topic: CSS Beijing / Snapshot 2007
17:17:35 [fantasai]
Peter: Question is whether should be REC track or WG Note
17:17:51 [fantasai]
Steve: It's important to be REC track, because this is how we have defined rolling out CSS as a series of modules.
17:18:26 [fantasai]
Steve: We need to establish when we're establishing a new conformance level
17:18:46 [fantasai]
Steve: The doc does define conformance criteria.
17:18:56 [fantasai]
Steve: It doesn't work as a note, because that isn't something you can conform to.
17:19:21 [fantasai]
Steve: There are certainly other groups, e.g. SVG and.. Timed Text's group.. that develop profiles of their specifications as conformance levels.
17:19:39 [fantasai]
Steve: Bert, you were on the phone call. Why did Ralph not think it was a REC-track document?
17:19:53 [fantasai]
Bert: It doesn't have any conformance requirements, and it's an informative document.
17:20:46 [fantasai]
fantasai: It's not a profile, so much as defining all of CSS.
17:20:57 [fantasai]
as of a particular point in time.
17:21:19 [fantasai]
17:21:24 [fantasai]
Steve: What defines conformance to CSS?
17:21:33 [fantasai]
Peter: The test suite for that spec
17:21:59 [fantasai]
fantasai: No, that doesn't define conformance, it helps measure it.
17:23:12 [fantasai]
glazou: Does anyone care about this set of specs as a conformance target?
17:23:35 [fantasai]
glazou: Would anyone say "We implement Snapshot 2007"?
17:24:28 [fantasai]
Sylvain: I wouldn't
17:25:10 [fantasai]
17:25:19 [fantasai]
Peter: The document reads like a Note.
17:25:36 [dsinger]
I guess I can see some point to being able to say "We implement CSS3 2010" (and have 2011 include more modules)...
17:25:41 [fantasai]
Steve: My question is, should there be a REC-track document, and how should that be written.
17:25:51 [fantasai]
Steve: Some people are making tools for this.
17:26:03 [fantasai]
Steve: Such people want to know what is going to be the next level for browsers.
17:26:07 [fantasai]
Steve: What is the next 2.1
17:26:27 [fantasai]
Steve: Tool vendors need to be able to expect what comes next.
17:27:10 [fantasai]
Steve: Notes are not as authoritive
17:27:45 [fantasai]
fantasai: There are a couple things that are normative and should be captured somewhere.
17:28:12 [fantasai]
fantasai: The first thing, it defines in what order the specs modify each other
17:28:18 [fantasai]
fantasai: Since that was an issue someone raised.
17:28:27 [fantasai]
fantasai: the ordering in section 3 is normative
17:28:41 [fantasai]
fantasai: Second, it defines what to do with a partial implementation
17:28:51 [fantasai]
fantasai: how to ignore values and things like that
17:29:48 [fantasai]
fantasai: The the third thing is, it gives recommendations for prefixing -- when your'e supposed to prefix, when you're not supposed to prefix.
17:30:38 [fantasai]
fantasai: Those are the three things that are normative in this spec, and are not captured elsewhere.
17:30:53 [fantasai]
fantasai: We can split the spec into a normative spec and an informative note
17:32:35 [fantasai]
fantasai: But I don't think we should drop these on the floor because it reads as a note.
17:32:38 [fantasai]
Sylvain: Who uses this?
17:32:49 [fantasai]
fantasai: Validator people use it to guide their implementation
17:33:08 [fantasai]
fantasai: Anyone trying to figure out what the state of all these CSS3 modules is would find this useful.
17:33:20 [fantasai]
fantasai: It would replace the CSS3 Roadmap, which presents a different view of modularization.
17:34:31 [fantasai]
glazou: Does anyone in our group use this document?
17:34:39 [fantasai]
Steve: We are not the target audience. It's the people outside our group.
17:34:43 [fantasai]
dbaron: We all know what it says.
17:35:11 [fantasai]
fantasai: This is the replacement for CSS2.1
17:35:20 [bradk]
17:35:22 [fantasai]
dsinger: A lot of people talk about CSS3
17:35:42 [fantasai]
dsinger: This document would define CSS3
17:36:59 [dsinger]
would it not be most helpful to publish snapshots that include only modules that are 'done'?
17:37:14 [fantasai]
Sylvain: Nobody cares about 2007 Snapshot
17:37:22 [fantasai]
Steve: Do you see value in the 2010 Snapshot?
17:37:29 [fantasai]
Sylvain: I don't see the value of it.
17:37:42 [fantasai]
Steve: It's the replacement of 2.1 for what the next "version" of CSS is.
17:37:58 [fantasai]
Steve: It's attempting to define a set of things that are intended as where the CSS group sees the next collection of things coming together.
17:38:22 [bradk]
who is linking to the snapshop:
17:38:33 [dsinger]
17:38:53 [fantasai]
17:39:09 [fantasai]
fantasai: The state of our modules is a mess. Nobody knows what is stable from its status.
17:39:20 [fantasai]
Sylvain: Then that's the problem we should solve
17:39:48 [fantasai]
Steve: Changing the status tracking method is not giving us a target
17:40:11 [dbaron]
ScribeNick: dbaron
17:40:11 [fantasai]
17:40:21 [dbaron]
sylvaing: Just make it a note and move on with the 2010 snapshot.
17:40:32 [Zakim]
17:40:36 [dbaron]
SteveZ: OK with me. I agree with the comment that says we shouldn't use that name, but...
17:40:51 [dsinger]
defining snapshots that include stable modules that are implemented ('widely') to give people a meaning behind 'CSS3 2010' makes sense
17:40:57 [dbaron]
sylvain: I don't see why the WG should be arguing about taking a snapshot from 2007 to CR.
17:41:16 [dbaron]
peterl: There is also pushback that this is a 2007 document that should be immediately replaced by a 2010 document.
17:41:26 [dsinger]
defining snapshots that include modules that might be done in the future or modules that, though done, are not (yet) 'mainstream' makes much less sense
17:41:29 [dbaron]
peterl: As a note, it can just be published on its own and we don't have to wait 3 years.
17:42:05 [dbaron]
peterl: There's also a mistaken impression of css3, which is a meaningless term. We should be defining what is CSS today. This can be a note.
17:42:14 [glazou]
17:42:19 [dbaron]
peterl: I think the normative parts of this document can be folded into a different rec-track document.
17:42:26 [dbaron]
SteveZ: which rec-track document?
17:42:31 [dbaron]
peterl: CSS 2.1 or a CSS core module
17:42:41 [dbaron]
SteveZ: That's what, to me, the snapshots were to do.
17:42:55 [dbaron]
peterl: I'm not talking about putting the list of modules in 2.1; that should just be a note.
17:43:05 [dbaron]
SteveZ: There are conformance requirements in there; the order of that list is important.
17:43:18 [dbaron]
glazou: Steve, the conformance requirements for css3 are going to change over time?
17:43:25 [dsinger]
there is no 'css3
17:43:25 [dsinger]
17:43:34 [dsinger]
there is 'css3 2010', 'css3 2012'
17:43:42 [dbaron]
dbaron: We're not doing a single CSS3.
17:43:56 [dbaron]
glazou: That's something we can understand, not users.
17:44:00 [dsinger]
the alternative is css3.0, css3.1, and so on...
17:44:02 [dbaron]
dbaron: The point of this document was to explain that.
17:44:12 [dbaron]
glazou: Given that this document is unknown in the designer community, I think it's a failure.
17:44:52 [dbaron]
sylvaing, "css3" is a mess; any time anyone submits a draft, it's css3-something. We could make it css-something until we agree it's part of css3.
17:45:03 [dbaron]
17:45:29 [dbaron]
sylvaing: Nobody cares about a document that describes the state of the world in 2007.
17:45:45 [dbaron]
SteveZ: It's also the state in 2009.
17:46:14 [dbaron]
SteveZ: I'm not arguing that we should do 2007 and not 2010. I really don't care which is the first doc that comes out. We do need a document that says "this is what css3 is today and this is what conformance to css3 would mean today".
17:46:22 [dbaron]
SteveZ: And this document, once published, doesn't change.
17:46:40 [dbaron]
sylvaing: Do we as a WG need to spend another half hour moving to CR the 2007 version of that snapshot?
17:46:45 [dbaron]
SteveZ: No, as long as we do it for 2010?
17:46:56 [dbaron]
peterl: I think there's a valid question whether the 2010 snapshot should be a rec-track document.
17:47:10 [dbaron]
SteveZ: Where would you put the order of conformance?
17:47:36 [dbaron]
arron: css3-mediaqueries depends on CSS21, so its conformance requires support for the others
17:48:08 [dbaron]
dbaron: I think part of the issue with the ordering is that we need to say what overrides things in other specs, not just what is required.
17:48:24 [dbaron]
glazou: I don't think we need a REC. I think an unofficial Web page from this WG is enough.
17:48:42 [dbaron]
SteveZ: I don't think it's good enough for claiming conformance. And there's an issue of other groups defining conformance to CSS.
17:48:59 [dbaron]
glazou: css3 itself is not a spec. So conformance to css3 means nothing.
17:49:13 [dbaron]
peterl: If this is a REC-track doc, where is its test suite?
17:49:19 [dbaron]
SteveZ: Test suites of individual modules.
17:49:39 [dbaron]
dsinger: Seems all it needs to say is "you need to be conformant to the following modules"
17:49:42 [dbaron]
SteveZ: And that's what it says.
17:49:49 [dbaron]
peterl: Do we need to take that through the REC track?
17:49:52 [dbaron]
SteveZ: yes
17:49:57 [dsinger]
s/you need to be/you must be/
17:50:19 [dbaron]
peterl: CSS is a moving target until this WG stops publishing docs
17:50:23 [dbaron]
SteveZ: not acceptable
17:50:34 [dbaron]
dsinger: And the point of the snapshots is that CSS 2010 is a stable target.
17:50:48 [dbaron]
peterl: Can't that just be a note?
17:50:59 [dbaron]
SteveZ: Not if you're going to define conformance.
17:51:23 [dbaron]
SteveZ: ... I think they have to be targets for a given market. The snapshot might define multiple sets for different markets.
17:51:33 [dbaron]
SteveZ: Without that, you have no guarantee that different products will behave the same way.
17:51:49 [dbaron]
SteveZ: And we're back in the "good old days" of competing implementations.
17:52:07 [dbaron]
SteveZ: And part of the process of what goes in the snapshot is that there's agreement that the people who are doing this thing to be working towards.
17:52:20 [dbaron]
SteveZ: Most implementations don't work very well with changing conformance in midstream.
17:52:38 [dbaron]
sylvaing: Which company today decides what they're going to do in CSS based on a snapshot from the WG?
17:52:46 [dbaron]
SteveZ: None that I know of, but I hope that they would.
17:53:16 [dbaron]
dbaron: Snapshot can also be following the implementors rather than leading.
17:53:57 [dbaron]
SteveZ: A tool provider can make a statement that this tool produces code that works with css3 part 1; it's much simpler than a list of products and versions.
17:54:21 [dbaron]
sylvaing: Does Adobe refer to snapshots in documentation of their products?
17:54:26 [dbaron]
SteveZ: We don't trust CSS3.
17:54:50 [dbaron]
peterl: This is a three year old document, and it had to be because of the levels of the modules it's referring to. And if it's a REC-track document, we'll always have that problem.
17:54:53 [dbaron]
SteveZ: That's fine.
17:54:54 [glazou]
szilles: can you please explain "don't trust" ?
17:55:25 [dbaron]
17:55:37 [dbaron]
peterl: And that means we'll be publishing snapshots out of date.
17:55:50 [dbaron]
dsinger: But that's exactly right.
17:56:16 [dbaron]
dsinger: You can always implement the modules ahead of the snapshot.
17:56:59 [dbaron]
sylvaing: Do we need a snapshot document to do this? Every time somebody writes a module it gets tagged "css3". Maybe we could not add "css3" until it's done?
17:57:08 [dbaron]
dsinger: I think putting "css3" in the module names is confusing.
17:57:30 [dbaron]
dbaron: I think we did agree to drop that about 4 years ago, but we never did...
17:57:44 [dbaron]
glazou: Even if we drop it, Web authors will still use it.
17:57:54 [dbaron]
glazou: For them, it's the next version of CSS, called CSS3, whether you like it or not.
17:58:02 [dbaron]
SteveZ: But they can't go look at the set of specs called "css3".
17:58:33 [dbaron]
dsinger: The rest of the world is talking about CSS3, and I think we need to give that a definition.
17:58:52 [dbaron]
glazou: We have one document, "Selectors", without CSS3 in the title, and everyone calls it CSS3 selectors.
17:59:14 [dbaron]
dsinger: Someone should look through the module names and come up with recommendations for changes, and whether we should do this bundling.
17:59:44 [Bert]
(Selectors does have level 3, namespaces doesn't)
17:59:55 [dbaron]
SteveZ: You'll get lack of agreement about which of the modules constitutes a reasonable set for interoperability. I don't care whether it's documenting semi-future or the past. I think it's useful to have a set of things that are frozen in time, and you can have more than one of these sets (over time).
18:00:29 [dbaron]
SteveZ: What I find surprising is that I thought we had this discussion when we created the snapshots, but we seem to be bringing up the same things that caused us to create snapshots in the first place.
18:00:34 [kojiishi]
kojiishi has joined #css
18:00:58 [dbaron]
sylvaing: Can we agree that ... ? I don't see the utility of debating moving 2007 to CR.
18:01:04 [Zakim]
18:01:06 [dbaron]
SteveZ: I don't care about 2007, but I care about 2010.
18:01:46 [dbaron]
SteveZ: I believe the text for 2010 is going to be basically the same as the text for 2007, except the module list.
18:01:47 [glazou]
grrr cannot rejoin
18:01:52 [dbaron]
peterl: Out of time, not sure I'm hearing consensus.
18:01:58 [dbaron]
SteveZ: I don't think we have consensus yet.
18:02:05 [glazou]
"the conference is restricted at this time" !!!
18:02:21 [dbaron]
SteveZ: I think a number of us believe a snapshot that documents a stake in the ground is useful, and another group believe that ...
18:02:22 [glazou]
sorry guys, cannot rejoin the call
18:02:28 [dbaron]
glazou, it's past the end time
18:02:37 [glazou]
painful Zakim
18:02:45 [dbaron]
SteveZ: We're ducking the issue of that we need to work at publicizing it.
18:03:06 [dbaron]
SteveZ: So if we do this we need to make sure people understand what it is and how to use it.
18:03:19 [dbaron]
sylvaing: I don't think it has to be a REC. But it needs to be useful and known.
18:03:27 [dbaron]
sylvaing: If nobody finds it there's no point.
18:03:39 [dbaron]
SteveZ: I think the intent was it would show up under /TR/CSS3
18:03:45 [dsinger]
I guess "CSS3.2 is defined as containing the following moduies" is OK, not as good as a conformance statement
18:03:45 [dbaron]
peterl: /TR/CSS
18:03:52 [dbaron]
peterl: Suggestions on how to move forward?
18:04:06 [dbaron]
sylvaing: Not move 2007 through the whole transition request until we figure this out?
18:04:18 [dbaron]
dsinger: ... and remove "css3" from names of modules.
18:04:36 [dbaron]
peterl: I believe we have agreement there. Question is whether /TR/CSS needs to be REC-track or can be a NOTE.
18:04:45 [dbaron]
peterl: Maybe discuss over email?
18:04:58 [dbaron]
dsinger: Also ask people at W3C who objected to it being a REC-track document?
18:05:13 [dbaron]
Topic: test suite
18:05:19 [glazou]
Ralph ?
18:05:20 [dbaron]
peterl: We have RC4 online, and now need more data
18:05:38 [dbaron]
peterl: Harness will go to the tests we need the data the most for.
18:05:46 [dbaron]
peterl: We need more results to get good blocking data.
18:06:07 [Zakim]
18:06:08 [dbaron]
peterl: So work on that for next week?
18:06:09 [Zakim]
18:06:10 [Zakim]
18:06:11 [Zakim]
18:06:12 [Zakim]
18:06:13 [Zakim]
18:06:13 [Zakim]
18:06:15 [Zakim]
18:06:17 [Zakim]
18:06:18 [dbaron]
peterl: There's a teleconference next week but not the week after.
18:06:23 [Zakim]
18:06:30 [Zakim]
18:06:32 [Zakim]
18:07:00 [Zakim]
18:07:27 [smfr]
smfr has left #css
18:10:19 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
18:10:21 [Zakim]
Attendees were +, glazou, arronei, +1.415.920.aabb, +1.858.216.aacc, plinss_, fantasai, +200000aadd, David_Baron, johnjan, +1.408.636.aaee, smfr, kojiishi,
18:10:24 [Zakim]
... danielweck, dsinger, +47.23.69.aaff, +1.650.275.aagg, bradk, howcome, +34.60.940.aahh, cesar, Bert, SteveZ, [Apple]
18:11:16 [fantasai]
dbaron: thanks for taking over the minutes
18:11:39 [fantasai]
dbaron: We got agreement at PFWG; they'll be checking over the resolution with their WG over the next 24 hours.
18:11:52 [fantasai]
and then send their official response
18:17:06 [oyvind]
have they signed Kiefer Sutherland? :)
18:18:04 [sylvaing]
sylvaing has joined #css
19:05:02 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
19:26:49 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
19:59:35 [gsnedders]
When is F2F in April planned to be?
20:38:02 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #CSS
21:51:41 [fantasai]
gsnedders: March 7-9, tentative
21:53:03 [nimbupani]
nimbupani has joined #css
23:14:32 [homata]
homata has joined #CSS
23:30:11 [fantasai]
Bert: I sent a message to the WG list from the wrong address; please feel free to delete it when you check the moderator queue. (I resent it from the right address.)
23:30:42 [gsnedders]
fantasai: thx
23:43:08 [sylvaing]
sylvaing has joined #css
23:56:33 [homata_]
homata_ has joined #CSS
23:57:25 [homata__]
homata__ has joined #CSS