15:17:20 RRSAgent has joined #css 15:17:20 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/03/30-css-irc 15:17:25 Zakim, this will be Style 15:17:25 ok, glazou; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 43 minutes 15:17:31 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:19:22 dbaron has joined #css 15:30:19 arno has joined #css 15:43:26 antonp has joined #css 15:44:13 glazou has left #css 15:47:37 glazou has joined #css 15:48:01 sylvaing has joined #css 15:48:17 salut sylvaing 15:49:06 hello! 15:49:51 alexmog has joined #css 15:51:01 kojiishi, I was referring to https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=156881 15:51:15 especially https://bug156881.bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=94217 15:51:59 Are you saying that Italian typography also has this? 15:55:51 Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started 15:55:58 +plinss 15:57:23 + +1.415.738.aaaa 15:57:27 -plinss 15:57:28 +plinss 15:57:50 + +1.206.324.aabb 15:57:58 stearns has joined #css 15:58:01 zakim, aaaa is jdaggett 15:58:01 +jdaggett; got it 15:58:15 +hober 15:58:23 Zakim, aabb is sylvaing 15:58:23 +sylvaing; got it 15:58:24 duga has joined #css 15:59:02 +stearns 15:59:10 + +1.949.654.aacc 15:59:37 +[Microsoft] 15:59:47 johnjan has joined #css 15:59:58 zakim, microsoft has johnjan 15:59:58 +johnjan; got it 16:00:15 +[Microsoft.a] 16:00:15 zakim, +1.949.654.aacc is duga 16:00:17 +duga; got it 16:00:28 zakim, microsoft has me 16:00:30 +Arron; got it 16:00:34 +??P43 16:00:40 Zakim, ??PP43 is me 16:00:52 sorry, glazou, I do not recognize a party named '??PP43' 16:00:57 +arno 16:01:02 oyvind has joined #css 16:01:03 Cathy has joined #css 16:01:05 http://www.w3.org/1998/12/bridge/info/name.php3 16:01:09 Zakim, ??P43 is me 16:01:14 arronei has joined #CSS 16:01:28 +glazou; got it 16:01:36 +David_Baron 16:01:46 +??P50 16:01:51 zakim, ??P50 is me 16:02:25 Present+ Cathy_Chan 16:02:31 +kojiishi; got it 16:03:40 +Bert 16:04:00 + +1.415.920.aadd 16:04:09 +Cathy 16:04:12 smfr has joined #css 16:04:32 zakim, aadd is fantasai 16:04:32 +fantasai; got it 16:05:13 + +1.408.636.aaee 16:05:23 Zakim, aaee is me 16:05:23 +smfr; got it 16:05:58 ScribeNick: fantasai 16:06:25 plinss: Anything to add to agenda? 16:06:32 glazou: We need to collect testimonials for CSS2.1 16:06:42 glazou: Each member should ping their AC rep about that 16:06:52 smfr: What's a testimonial? 16:07:14 glazou: It's just one paragraph about how Apple is happy about the release of CSS2.1 and it's going to change the world and their strategy, etc. 16:07:51 Topic: F2F meeting 16:08:01 plinss: got an email from Koji this morning 16:08:23 kojiishi, your are VERY noisy 16:08:24 koji: That's all the info I have. 16:08:30 bradk has joined #css 16:08:44 koji: If there are many concerns, we can look for locations in Osaka area which is safer 16:08:52 plinss: Everyone read the email? 16:09:24 +bradk 16:09:24 glazou: Personally I prefer avoiding Japan at this time. 16:09:28 jdaggett: Could you explain? 16:09:36 glazou: First I have a veto from my family. 16:09:52 glazou: Second, flights are chaotic at this time. E.g. Air France is diverting flights to Tokyo 16:10:02 jdaggett: they're diverted to Osaka, though 16:10:17 glazou: Lastly, we need to decide asap, otherwise my flight will be too expensive 16:10:23 jdaggett: I have a feeling prices won't be going up 16:10:39 glazou: I checked prices recently, and they're more expensive than they used to be 16:10:46 glazou: at least from France 16:10:47 +SteveZ 16:11:05 sylvaing: There are a lot of people attending those meetings. 16:11:20 sylvaing: I don't think it's fair to change the meeting because it will be more expensive for one person. 16:11:31 sylvaing: We cannot predict airline prices, especially for Japan at this time. 16:11:44 sylvaing: I don't understand why we need to make this decision today. 16:12:00 jdaggett: I don't understand urgency. Sure better to decide quickly as possible, but not convinced it needs to be today. 16:12:06 glazou: Because we're almost 60 days before the trip 16:12:17 sylvaing: I always book my trips 30 days before 16:12:26 glazou: You have a rich company behind you 16:12:43 dbaron: Flight prices often go /down/ between 8wks and 4 wks. Not always. 16:13:01 (I'd be OK with Osaka or Kyoto. Offer of hosting at W3C/ERCIM in France also still stands. But please decide soon.) 16:13:04 jdaggett: I would be interested in hearing from people who were originally coming to Japan and are now concerned. 16:13:07 glazou: I am 16:13:19 Bert: Me too. I'm concerned about Tokyo. Could go to Osaka or Kyoto. 16:13:35 Steve: I'm concerned because I expected things to get better over this last week, and in fact they've gotten worse. 16:13:48 Steve: So I haven't seen things getting better. 16:14:01 sylvaing: Have you heard from the news, or from people actually there? 16:14:12 sylvaing: I hear one thing from the news, but another from the people I know there. 16:14:22 jdaggett: The actual radiation numbers are going down around the plant. 16:14:44 jdaggett: No predictor of what could happen tomorrow, but there isn't actually a lot of stuff that's going right now that is an immediate concern for people living in Tokyo. 16:14:52 jdaggett: I'd be concerned if I was living near the plant. 16:14:57 jdaggett: But Tokyo is far enough away 16:15:40 kojiishi: Not sure appropriate comparison, but Chernobyl escape zone was 100km, and Tokyo is more than 160km 16:15:44 -glazou 16:15:51 kojiishi: If you take Osaka, you have 500km more distance 16:16:00 sylvaing: I'm fine with Tokyo, I'm fine with Osaka, I'm fine with Japan 16:16:03 +??P1 16:16:06 s/160km/250km/ 16:16:11 Zakim, ??P1 is me 16:16:11 +glazou; got it 16:16:17 sylvaing: I would like it if we could find a way to keep that workshop going for our Japanese friends to attend 16:16:23 sylvaing: So if not in Japan, then somewhere nearby 16:16:27 sylvaing: But I'm fine with Japan. 16:17:07 vladivostok? 16:17:11 http://news.discovery.com/earth/japan-nuclear-reactors-worst-case-110329.html 16:17:19 sylvaing: Wrt prices, I think the airfare might go up, but we're staying for awhile and hotel prices are likely to be very low. 16:17:29 sylvaing cites case of his last trip 16:17:38 jdaggett: But we need to outline a path to making a decision. 16:17:45 jdaggett: i"m not comfortable with the idea of just deciding today 16:17:56 jdaggett: But I think we need to set a scope for when the venue is defined 16:18:02 jdaggett: Unfortunately Tab is not on call today 16:18:07 jdaggett: And he was sponsor of venue 16:18:21 jdaggett: Not sure from Koji's message that we have a solid meeting place there 16:18:31 jdaggett: Google just has a small sales office in Osaka 16:19:48 ... 16:20:04 jdaggett: Tokyo would be a better place, there's much better accommodation etc. 16:20:11 http://www.consortium.or.jp/contents_detail.php?frmId=1608 16:20:15 kojiishi: Current candidate is in Kyoto 16:20:48 kojiishi: This is a candidate for the forum. Unfortunately the room is not available for June 4th, so we're looking for other places for the F2F 16:21:06 kojiishi: Kyoto and Osaka are very close 16:21:26 jdaggett: Japan has two electrical grids, and Osaka is in a different one from Tokyo 16:21:31 jdaggett: The blackouts don't apply to Osaka 16:22:33 sylvaing: We should check with Tab about hosting situation 16:24:18 fantasai: We could decide on Japan, and then figure out the venue later. Then people can book their flights now, and find their hotels later 16:24:51 Steve: As long as someone is dedicated to sponsoring the venue, in case it costs something, then we're ok 16:25:02 zakim, who is noisy? 16:25:04 kojiishi: Wrt rental offices, IC? group in Japan is willing to pay for that. 16:25:14 s/IC?/ICT/ 16:25:17 plinss, listening for 13 seconds I heard sound from the following: plinss (42%), fantasai (11%) 16:25:18 me glazou, US link ? 16:25:24 Steve: Think we should spend 2 weeks to settle on the venue 16:25:36 plinss: So, sounds like most people are ok with Osaka/Kyoto aside from glazou 16:25:39 sylvaing: state department 16:25:40 plinss: I think 2 weeks is reasonable 16:25:47 plinss: Meanwhile try to nail down a venue 16:25:49 plinss: make a final call then 16:25:53 i'm there, i'm asking because i can't find what you're looking at 16:26:11 Topic: CSS2.1 16:26:22 plinss: Let's try to get this nailed down today. 16:26:24 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2011Mar/att-0238/last-call.htm 16:27:03 http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-203 16:27:28 glazou has joined #css 16:27:39 Bert: I agree with the proposal 16:27:41 -jdaggett 16:27:42 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0567.html 16:28:02 Arron: fantasai and I spent a lot of time looking over with one of our developers here, and we all agree it's a viable solution here 16:28:25 Arron: Text that was there previously seemed to be there for consistency with 8.3.1, and it just causes confusion in this section because it doesn't match exactly. 16:28:53 Arron: So removing that line about bottom border doesn't create a problem, and make spec more consistent with implementations and with what we wwant in the end, really 16:29:18 dbaron: That was to prevent margins below the bottom of the element from influencing the hypothetical position 16:30:39 fantasai: The rules in 8.3.1 introduce the bottom border in some cases, such as the one you're concerned about. Just not in all, so saying that here is inconsistent with 8.3.1 16:31:01 RESOLVED: proposal accepted 16:31:24 -glazou 16:31:28 http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-179 16:31:38 +??P12 16:31:44 Zakim, ??P12 is me 16:31:44 +glazou; got it 16:31:47 johnjan: We were confused and just wanted to make sure it was in fact closed 16:31:51 just to clarify the F2F location suggestion, I suggested *Kyoto* as a place with better accomodations, not Tokyo 16:32:11 plinss: We have an objection here 16:32:13 the second objection URL there belongs on issue 192 16:32:51 -fantasai 16:34:43 +fantasai 16:35:05 ?: Bert responded after that message with further edits 16:35:15 +Anton Prowse 16:36:12 Anton: What came up on IRC, the first URL on objection is the latest that was on the mailing list about this 16:36:32 Anton summarizes issue. 16:36:42 fantasai: I think Bert just edited that. 16:37:04 we're looking at http://www.w3.org/Style/css2-updates/css2/visuren.html#anonymous-block-level ? 16:37:21 Anton: In the copy I'm looking at it still says the same thing. 16:37:34 Bert: I don't think you can see the actual editor's draft. 16:38:27 "The P element contains a chunk (C1) of anonymous text followed by a block-level element followed by another chunk (C2) of anonymous text. The resulting boxes would be a block box representing the BODY, containing an anonymous block box around C1, the SPAN block box, and another anonymous block box around C2. " 16:38:43 Anton: That looks right ot me 16:38:44 YAY :-) 16:38:57 GREEN 16:39:02 yeah, http://www.w3.org/Style/Group/css2-src/visuren.html#anonymous-block-level and http://www.w3.org/Style/css2-updates/css2/visuren.html#anonymous-block-level differ on the "The resulting boxes"... sentence. 16:39:15 http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-192 16:39:24 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0402.html 16:39:49 dbaron: I sent a response email based on the WG discussion there, and no longer even agreed with that discussion while I was writing things up. And now I've forgotten it all anyway. 16:40:40 fantasai: Didn't Bert have some proposed changes for this? 16:41:36 Anton's suggestions in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0402.html are relative to text that already changed a bit. Relative to the current text, I think he means the following two changes in 9.5 (Floats). Replace 16:41:40 > If a shortened line box is too small to contain any content > after the float, then that content is shifted downward until > either it fits or there are no more floats present. Any > content in the current line before a floated box is reflowed > in the first available line on the other side of the float. 16:41:45 by: 16:41:47 | If a shortened line box is too small to contain any content | after the float without overflowing its containing block, | then that content is shifted downward until | either it fits or there are no more floats present. Any | content in the current line before a floated box is reflowed | in the same line on the other side of the float. 16:41:52 i.e., add "without overflowing its containing block" and replace "first available" by "same." 16:42:58 dbaron: Doesn't this introduce an inconsistency between start and end floats 16:43:17 fantasai: So we should say "line box" instead of "containing block" 16:43:45 Anton describes an RTL case 16:44:02 Anton: You can't have inline content overflowing the line box, it gets bigger 16:44:14 dbaron: No, the line box edges are determined by the containing block / float intrusions. 16:44:51 Anton: Ok, if that's true, then for sure we should talk about overflowing the line box htere. 16:45:08 dbaron: I want to find the context here. All three times we've discussed this I've missed the context 16:45:17 dbaron: What seciton is this in? 16:45:21 Evan_ has joined #CSS 16:45:30 s/seciton/section 16:46:26 Anton: We want "if the content fits", not "it fits"... 16:46:38 Anton: As far as I understand is, you have your stack of line boxes, you might have floats present. 16:46:53 Anton: You're trying to flow the inline boxes into the line box 16:47:05 -glazou 16:47:07 Anton: You only shift things if you can't fit any piece of that content next to the float 16:47:18 +??P12 16:47:25 Zakim, ??P12 is me 16:47:25 +glazou; got it 16:47:28 Anton: The one characteristic that's different btw normal line box and the shortened line box is that content can't overflow it 16:47:38 Anton: If it would, it moves downward 16:48:07 dbaron: I think your original proposal to delete "further" is correct -- it's about whether *any* content fits in the shortened line box. 16:48:20 dbaron: If content before the float doesn't fit, then the float positioning rules kick in to move the float. 16:48:32 If a shortened line box is too small to contain any content, then the line box is shifted downward until either some content fits or there are no more floats present. 16:48:44 Anton: You used rules 6-8 to explain this, [...] 16:48:58 Anton: You can never have a previous box that is below the top of the float 16:49:19 Anton: Previous content absolutely has to stay in the same line box. It might get shifted to the other side of the float, but never moves down. 16:49:26 dbaron points to his proposal in IRC 16:49:41 Anton: That looks perfect. 16:50:05 Bert: I don't see any difference between any of these variants 16:50:31 dbaron: Difference with what I typed is it has fewere occurances of "it", some of those "it"s were unclear. So I expanded all of them. 16:50:46 Anton: Other difference is the original text says "first available box" 16:51:16 Anton: My impression was that Bert's original concept of line boxes was you had a line box grid, a stack of perfectly stacked line boxes inside the containing block. 16:51:32 Anton: While that's a nice concept, it's not consistent with the rest of the spec, and certainly not with implementations 16:51:41 Anton: It's not filling content into a lined notepad 16:51:47 Anton: The line boxes can be shifted themselves 16:51:51 Anton: leaving a gap 16:52:06 Anton: So rather than a stack of empty line boxes, you have a gap 16:52:19 Anton: "first available" made sense in the original vision, but not anymore. 16:52:54 Anton: (Wasn't even correct in original case, because content before the float wouldn't get flowed into multiple line boxes anyway.) 16:53:45 Bert: Sounds right. But we still have to decide which version of the text to adopt 16:54:15 Anton: What dbaron proposed on IRC looks correct. 16:55:09 (The line box not just moves down, it also gets wider...) 16:55:12 If a shortened line box is too small to contain any content, then the line box is shifted downward (and its width recomputed) until either some content fits or there are no more floats present. 16:55:18 fantasai_ has joined #css 16:55:49 Steve: That implies the shortned lined box is moved down, but when it moves down it's no longer shortened necessarily 16:56:08 fantasai has joined #css 16:56:29 dbaron: I added another proposal in IRC. 16:56:39 Anton: works for me. felt it was implicit, but equally correct what dbaron wrote there 16:56:43 plinss: Any objections? 16:56:55 RESOLVED: dbaron's latest proposal accepted 16:57:16 -arno 16:57:17 dbaron: Did we resolve all the bits of the issue email? 16:57:27 Anton: We've solved both parts in one sentence. 16:57:57 dbaron and Anton discuss "first available" 16:58:31 Bert: "first available" is in the next sentence 16:58:41 dbaron: So we've agreed to replace 2 sentences with 1? 16:58:43 Anton double-checks 16:59:34 Anton: I think dbaron's proposal combines those two sentences. 16:59:54 Anton: What it misses is the part about content before the float moving to the other side of the float 17:00:19 dbaron: well, i was only trying to replace the first, hadn't gotten to the second 17:00:33 Anton: If we were going to replace the second sentence... 17:01:07 Issue 2 is the first sentence and ISsue 3 is the second sentence 17:01:10 RRSAgent: pointer 17:01:10 See http://www.w3.org/2011/03/30-css-irc#T17-01-10 17:01:14 -smfr 17:01:28 -glazou 17:01:40 arno has joined #css 17:01:42 dbaron: do you want to replace 'first available line' to 'same line'? 17:01:46 Anton: Yes, that makes sense there. 17:01:58 plinss: Other thoughts on that change? 17:02:04 Bert: Fine with that too 17:02:09 RESOLVED: Second proposal also accepted 17:02:33 plinss: A couple more items left. If people can stay, would be nice to get publication out today 17:02:41 sylvaing: I can stay. When do you need testimonials? 17:02:54 Bert: If we are lucky, then first available date we can issue them is May 31st 17:02:59 Bert: So before May 31st 17:03:19 Bert: a few days before that 17:03:45 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0637.html 17:04:12 Bert: I propose we don't change anything now. 17:05:45 ("the other side" in the float issue still doesn't make sense...) 17:05:58 -[Microsoft] 17:06:16 i have to go to another meeting...sorry. 17:06:30 @oyvind: i agree for rtl, but that was rejected by the WG 17:06:53 sorry, i mean for right floats in ltr 17:06:54 Bert summarizes the email 17:06:54 oyvind, It really only makes sense for floats on the start-side, I think. 17:07:30 right 17:08:04 dbaron and Bert discuss something that they thought was defined but apparently isn't 17:08:50 dbaron: ok, let's just leave it 17:09:06 Bert: Description of line-height property ... 17:09:20 -bradk 17:09:27 dbaron: Used doesn't mean it changes the answer 17:09:41 that definitely had a :-) at the end 17:09:46 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0623.html 17:10:26 fantasai: Those edits seem correct to me 17:10:31 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0277.html 17:10:56 fantasai: Issue about why aren't we dropping :first-line and :first-letter 17:11:44 fantasai: I think our answer is that it's in CSS1 and CSS3, so leaving it out of CSS2.1 doesn't make sense. 17:12:11 dbaron: Although I wish we used text from an earlier draft of Selectors 17:12:38 Arron: We have a good enough area of interop here, based on testcases. 17:13:14 RESOLVED: Not dropping :first-line :first-letter from CSS2.1. 17:13:20 dbaron would like to drop it, but not going there right now. 17:13:39 Bert: we need an updated disposition of comments 17:13:44 Arron: Already have it ready 17:13:49 Bert: Implementation reports 17:13:56 plinss: Have it, just need to write it up formally. 17:14:06 Bert: Ok, then I have to update draft with what we decided today. 17:14:17 plinss: I propose advancing 2.1 to PR 17:14:28 plinss: Any objections? 17:14:33 RESOLVED: Advance CSS2.1 to PR. 17:14:51 Anton: What's the plan for errata? 17:15:08 -SteveZ 17:15:11 Anton: Lots of issues that need errata'ing 17:15:18 Anton: including contradictions in margin collapsing etc. 17:15:22 plinss: Don't have a formal timeline 17:15:25 yet 17:15:33 plinss: There will always be issues, since it's such a long spec 17:15:47 dbaron: Once we're at REC, it's easier to get to REC again. It combines LC and PR 17:15:59 dbaron: and then we can publish an updated REC 17:16:10 s/It combines/PER combines/ 17:16:13 Bert: Errata can be published any time. We can update the errata list anytime 17:16:40 -David_Baron 17:16:41 -hober 17:16:43 -[Microsoft.a] 17:16:43 Meeting closed. 17:16:44 -duga 17:16:47 -sylvaing 17:16:48 -kojiishi 17:16:49 -stearns 17:16:49 -plinss 17:16:50 duga has left #css 17:16:51 -fantasai 17:16:52 -Bert 17:16:56 -Cathy 17:16:57 Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended 17:16:59 Attendees were plinss, +1.415.738.aaaa, +1.206.324.aabb, jdaggett, hober, sylvaing, stearns, johnjan, [Microsoft], duga, Arron, arno, glazou, David_Baron, kojiishi, Bert, 17:17:01 ... +1.415.920.aadd, Cathy, fantasai, +1.408.636.aaee, smfr, bradk, SteveZ 17:17:22 arronei: did you update the DoC with all the relevant Verified lines? 17:17:46 dbaron: So what happened with the definitions of :first-line / :first-letter? 17:18:02 fantasai, can we discuss that sometime after noon? 17:18:06 dbaron: sure 17:19:39 alexmog has joined #css 17:29:12 fantasai: yes I added the verified lines in the document 18:12:18 dbaron has joined #css 18:17:01 arno has joined #css 18:32:27 antonp has left #css 18:32:44 Martijnc has joined #css 18:41:46 arno has joined #css 18:58:01 mollydotcom has left #css 19:14:35 Zakim has left #css 19:29:22 Minutes posted 19:29:34 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0727.html 19:38:14 Bert: edits checked for 192 and 203 19:38:26 Bert: Is there a way to make the public editor's draft automatically sync to yours? 19:39:00 Bert: we might want to do that so we don't have such out-of-sync problems in the future... 19:39:09 it's kindof confusing to have two editor's drafts out-of-sync :) 19:43:05 Already sync'ed. 21:09:14 arno has joined #css 21:52:18 arno has joined #css 22:38:31 arno has joined #css 23:06:11 arno has joined #css