See also: IRC log
PL: Looking for data on block tests. Nothing happened there? We need to get this finished. My deadline is the ftf.
SG: Can we talk at the ftf?
PL: Wrap-up beforehand would be perfect, otherwise at ftf. Issue 205?
EE: Can we postpone for a few minutes? Need my computer…
PL: Issue 207?
EE: Not looked at margin collapsing yet. Sent a proposal on some other issue.
PL: Issue 214? There is a proposed edit.
SG: Would any of the edits require test changes?
PL: I think the tests already changed.
EE: Don't think there is anything open anymore agaist the issues list.
AE: Didn't find any to change.
PL: Accept edits for 214?
<dbaron> (which is the URL plinss pasted above)
RESOLUTION: edit for 214 accepted.
BB: I have made a raw list of comments that were sent to www-style. Anybody interested in it?
EE: Can you add them to the wiki?
PL: The other issues on CSS 2.1 are also on the wiki.
BB: I find the wiki not really handy. Hard to edit and not easy to see which issues are open and closed.
PL: Let's not switch tools for now.
SG: What needs to be done for next week in the tests? is there page that lists what remains to be done?
JJ: Should be on the two links given in the agenda.
SG: A single wiki page would be handy.
PL: It seems a few issues are complex enough that we need the ftf for them. But mostly we are waiting for enough implementations.
JJ: What does that mean for CSS 2.1? Will CSS 2.1 just sit there until a suitable beta is published?
PL: In theory, yes. We can change the spec if necessary.
SG: Are we planning to add any test cases for currently open issues?
PL: That was not my intention. I think we decided to close the test suite some time ago. We will have errata, a snapshot of the testsuite, and keep editing it. No additional tests. Maybe just if we have a substantive change with absolutely not coverage in the test suite…
PL: There is a wiki page for the agenda.
SG: We have some extra MS people coming for layout/grid stuff.
PL: A new member from Adobe as well. Interested in “regions” and flowing text between them. I'm hoping they can attend.
TA: Google Chrome also will have a meeting on layout. They may not be at the ftf itself, but I will be at both meetings.
SF: We're also interested in the flow regions from Adobe.
PL: Overlap with templates and other things. Good opportunity for synergy. Please post other agenda items on the wiki.
EE: Some css3-text issues. Please raise any other issues soon. Before April. With Koji trying to resolve all known issues. But expecting more than one Last Call anyway. There are still open issues we know about. But please mention any others soon.
SG: Tuesday would be good for layout, regions and related. So the extra MS people can come that day.
PL: Can you mention on the wiki what issues you like grouped? Then we can do agenda planning.
PL: Some discussion about a workhop.
TA: Good idea, as said on the thread. Some sort of impromptu meeting.
KI: Some informal forum is preferred.
BB: Agreed. We don't have a sponsor for a costly event.
PL: Where would this be?
KI: So should I respond that we prefer some sort of informal forum?
PL: Yes, that sounds good. I'm only available before our ftf, not after. May 30 or 31 is possible.
KI: Maybe I can ask for vote? I think EE preferred after the ftf?
BB: Preference for before, but can probably make after as well.
DB: It depends on what flights I can find.
TA: I already have my flights and can be there after. Otherwise have to rebook.
SG: Prefer before.
PL: Seems it's about 50-50… Our ftf dates are firm. I guess.
TA: Yes, as I said, I already booked my flight…
PL: Koji, any idea when we can know when and where?
KI: Date is up to us. The place I can ask around. Probably Keio, maybe also NTT. I'm not so worried about that. How do we decide the date as soon as possible?
PL: We can at least start a wiki to collect ideas for the contents. We can give people a week and decide the date next week . who would be attending, apart from us?
KI: Some people who want to meet us. And it depends on the topics. EPUB people also.
KI: We can put that on the wiki, too.
SG: Yes, I'm interested in the constraints of Japanese designers.
<dbaron> I think there's a slight wording issue: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Feb/0674.html … but otherwise it seems fine
TA: If you have an image with no ratio but a width and no height, the rules force the ratio to 1:1.
TA: Such an image is difficult to make, so I don't expect anything to break if list style images use the rules for images instead. We also don't have tests for it. Some browsers are quite close to my suggested rule. Another issue is making the wording easier. DB had some suggestions.
DB: There is something else: you leave some undefined cases, where no rules apply.
TA: Ah, you're right. Will fix that. Chrome and Opera handle such images. Opera does it like I propose. Chrome not exactly but close.
SG: Do you have the test case?
TA: IE9 does what the spec says now. So I'm asking IE to change.
SG: So apparently the spec can be implemented.
TA: Yes, but it is inconsistent with images in other places.
SG: Do you know of a use case?
TA: Such images seem weird to me.
EE: Yes, I think we just spec'ed that for completeness.
SG: Are there any testcases for this now?
TA: Now, there aren't.
SG: Do we need to add some?
TA: We have one implementation, Opera, that does it. So we don't have two implementations yet.
SG: We have one implementation for the current spec, too. Should we add a test case at all? Should the edit be in CSS3 instead?
EE: CSS2 and 3 cannot contradict each other, 3 can only be more precise.
DB: I think we can make the change and add the tests to the pool of tests to add after the PR test snapshot.
<JohnJan> * agree with DB
BK: Do we make it undefined, or make your change?
TA: I propose to make the actual change.
DB: We can add tests after PR, they improve interop, but do not invalidate the PR.
PL: I think we can accept the edit for the CSS 2.1 errata.
BB: But we don't have errata, we have a WD currently.
PL: Yes, but we will have errata later.
EE: I don't think we should postpone the edit.
PL: Conditionally accept?
EE: Yes, but want to review proposed tests first.
BB: OK with me.
RESOLUTION: conditionally accept Tab's edit on list-style-image size, pending review of tests by Elika.