IRC log of css on 2011-05-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:55:41 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #css
15:55:41 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:55:51 [plinss]
zakim, this will be style
15:55:51 [Zakim]
ok, plinss; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
15:56:07 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
15:56:14 [Zakim]
15:57:50 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.214.aaaa
15:57:56 [TabAtkins_]
Zakim, aaaa is TabAtkins
15:57:56 [Zakim]
+TabAtkins; got it
15:59:07 [danielweck]
danielweck has joined #css
15:59:10 [oyvind]
oyvind has joined #css
15:59:37 [Zakim]
15:59:56 [Zakim]
15:59:57 [arronei]
zakim, microsoft has me
15:59:58 [Zakim]
+arronei; got it
16:00:14 [danielweck]
Zakim, ??P32is me
16:00:14 [Zakim]
I don't understand '??P32is me', danielweck
16:00:32 [danielweck]
zakim, ??P32 is me
16:00:32 [Zakim]
+danielweck; got it
16:00:40 [Zakim]
+ +1.206.324.aabb
16:00:42 [smfr]
smfr has joined #css
16:01:03 [Zakim]
16:01:04 [arno]
arno has joined #css
16:01:07 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.536.aacc
16:01:17 [arno]
zakim, aacc is arno
16:01:17 [Zakim]
+arno; got it
16:01:39 [Zakim]
16:01:54 [Zakim]
16:01:58 [Zakim]
16:02:07 [Zakim]
16:02:10 [kojiishi]
zakim, ??p37 is me
16:02:10 [Zakim]
+kojiishi; got it
16:02:14 [johnjan]
johnjan has joined #css
16:02:30 [johnjan]
zakim, microsoft has johnjan
16:02:30 [Zakim]
+johnjan; got it
16:02:40 [cesar]
cesar has joined #css
16:02:54 [sylvaing]
Zakim, aabb is sylvaing
16:02:54 [Zakim]
+sylvaing; got it
16:02:56 [Zakim]
16:03:55 [Zakim]
+ +050134aadd
16:04:02 [danielweck]
zakim, who am I ?
16:04:02 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, danielweck.
16:04:09 [danielweck]
zakim, never mind.
16:04:09 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'never mind', danielweck
16:04:14 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.920.aaee
16:04:53 [szilles]
szilles has joined #css
16:05:21 [cathy]
cathy has joined #css
16:05:57 [Zakim]
16:06:48 [fantasai]
ScribeNick: fantasai
16:06:51 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.536.aaff
16:07:11 [fantasai]
plinss: Any other items for the agenda?
16:07:12 [murakami]
murakami has joined #css
16:07:20 [fantasai]
szilles: WD status for regions?
16:07:38 [alexmog]
alexmog has joined #css
16:08:04 [fantasai]
plinss: Kyoto F2F, need agenda items
16:08:23 [fantasai]
plinss: Add them earlier so people have time to review and prepare
16:08:38 [fantasai]
16:08:53 [fantasai]
plinss: Bert sent a message that we're missing reviews for CSS2.1
16:09:02 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: Is there a way to see who has sent in a review?
16:09:14 [plinss]
16:09:31 [fantasai]
plinss: MS, Mozilla, Opera, and Apple have responded
16:09:43 [fantasai]
?: Adobe?
16:10:16 [fantasai]
(Nokia and Opera are the others who have responded so far)
16:10:22 [fantasai]
plinss: Chris is missing, can't talk about charter
16:10:28 [fantasai]
plinss: Is Bert here to talk about website?
16:10:35 [fantasai]
plinss: Nope.
16:10:43 [fantasai]
plinss: Next is spec annotation system
16:10:51 [fantasai]
plinss: Just wanted to get some quick input, discussed on email
16:11:03 [fantasai]
plinss: Do we want to add this to CSS2.1? Do we want to use moving forward?
16:11:10 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: Would def like to use for specs I edit
16:11:14 [fantasai]
szilles: +1
16:11:20 [sylvaing]
+1 as well
16:11:27 [fantasai]
arronei: Would like for 2.1 and any in the future if possible
16:11:43 [fantasai]
plinss: Any objection to adding to CSs2.1?
16:11:52 [fantasai]
RESOLVED: Use spec annotation system for CSS2.1 and future specs
16:12:13 [Zakim]
+ +34.92.38.aagg
16:12:17 [fantasai]
topic: CJK longhand styles
16:12:19 [plinss]
16:12:35 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: Some ppl objected to complexity in lists
16:12:46 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: The only complex parts I could potentially remove are the special styles like CJK ones
16:12:57 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: They were defined up to 10^16, which is way more than any impl can do
16:13:14 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: If I limit range to 10^4 I can represent Japanese and Korean styles as additive style
16:13:19 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: And Chinese becomes much simpler
16:13:25 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: I think 10,000 is a reasonable limit here.
16:13:46 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: I wanted to know if anyone wants CJK longhand styles to go beyond
16:14:01 [fantasai]
arronei: I think your limit is reasonable, but I don't think it should be a hard limit.
16:14:09 [fantasai]
arronei: If a UA wants to go beyond then it should be able to do that.
16:14:10 [glazou]
glazou has joined #css
16:14:21 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: When you exceed the range, you drop to a fallback style
16:14:32 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: In this case, drops to cjk-decimal
16:14:45 [Zakim]
16:14:51 [glazou]
Zakim, ??P0 is me
16:14:51 [Zakim]
+glazou; got it
16:14:51 [fantasai]
bradk: Can't we say that if the UA supports the larger numbers, then they should do it in the more sophisticated way?
16:14:57 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: If I'm not specifying it
16:15:05 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: I either specify a larger range or a shorter range
16:15:36 [fantasai]
sylvaing: So once the fallback comes, can you get the proper numbers by more rules?
16:15:43 [fantasai]
sylvaing: by specifying ... [????]
16:15:53 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: theoretically
16:16:27 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: Officially, I could go up to 10^5 and still have all the same benefits, it's just 10^6 Japanese and Korean can't be additive, and Chinese gets more complex
16:16:36 [fantasai]
sylvaing: I would rather have the spec be clear
16:16:48 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: There are other number systems already in the spec that have similar problems.
16:17:02 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: Hebrew, ex, has ways of expressing numbers beyond the range in the spec right now.
16:17:18 [fantasai]
sylvaing: The use case isn't representing all numbers
16:17:30 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: I could potentially go through and identify all the types of lists that have longer representations than I've defined
16:17:46 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: Like circled decimal type, only has 50 Unicode chars. You could always synthesize more
16:18:00 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: But I don't want to make things vague.
16:18:17 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: Going through and explaining how to extend them would be more complexity than people want
16:18:26 [fantasai]
bradk: You were talking about putting those in an appendix
16:18:36 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: The definitions are part of the spec in an appendix for ua stylesheet
16:18:52 [fantasai]
bradk: If you wanted to go beyond 10,000 you could still recommend what the UA puts in its style sheet
16:18:59 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: If I carve out an exception for CJK longhand
16:19:03 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: That's inconsistent
16:19:18 [cesar]
zakim, aadd is me
16:19:18 [Zakim]
+cesar; got it
16:19:49 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: We do know how to do it correctly, but nobody wanted to do that.
16:20:05 [fantasai]
fantasai: Not true. Webkit implements it in full (though buggy) and Mozilla implements it correctly up to its internal counter limit
16:20:15 [fantasai]
s/in full//
16:20:38 [fantasai]
bradk: Even if there were some exceptions for e.g. cjk-longhand, I think there'd be some value to have an exception for UAs that want beyond 10,000
16:21:09 [fantasai]
bradk: Some UAs in todays world have a problem going beyond such large numbers, but at some point other UAs won't mind
16:21:17 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: So at that point we'll require larger limits
16:21:30 [fantasai]
?: ... that don't want those limits
16:21:37 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: Hardware limits always override anything the spec says
16:22:15 [fantasai]
1) Define cjk counter styles up to 10^16 (full definition)
16:22:36 [fantasai]
2) Define them up to 10,000 (artificially limited to simplify)
16:22:47 [fantasai]
3) Allow both behaviors
16:23:28 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: Note, the full definition is up to 10^68, but usually beyond that you switch to scientific notation
16:23:56 [fantasai]
fantasai: But we have a definition for up to 10^16 that we're pretty sure is correct
16:24:13 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: Everybody does counters up to 2^30, some go up to 2^31
16:24:20 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: That's like 10^12
16:24:45 [Zakim]
16:24:58 [hober]
Zakim, Apple has me
16:24:58 [Zakim]
+hober; got it
16:25:24 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: There are only two complex styles left. Ethiopic-numeric and cjk longhand
16:25:51 [fantasai]
sylvaing: It's complex for no use case, why would you have such a long list?
16:25:58 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: Most styles defined to infinity, note
16:26:15 [fantasai]
bradk: Web is a big place. I'm not sure there aren't lists that go beyond 10,000 or that start at 10,000 and go to 20,000
16:26:25 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: There are other types defined up to infinity
16:26:40 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #css
16:27:16 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: If I define the CJK styles out more fully, I'll want to define the other styles more fully
16:27:25 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: to be more consistent
16:27:43 [fantasai]
?: 10,000 seems like a reasonable artificial limit especially if we define the fallback for what happens if we go beyond that
16:28:08 [fantasai]
16:28:38 [fantasai]
plinss: I do think 10,000 items in the list is a reasonable limit, but I'm concerned about lists that don't counting at 1
16:28:48 [fantasai]
sylvaing: Maybe the use case is someone who has a paged view of a database
16:29:03 [fantasai]
sylvaing: You start at 12,000 one a particular page
16:29:26 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: Printouts like that are the only really strong use case for lists that start at large numbers, and you won't use cjk longhand for that
16:29:42 [fantasai]
glazou: Use case is email. You can have thousands of email in a list
16:30:09 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: are you going to use CJK numbers for that?
16:30:11 [fantasai]
glazou: why not
16:31:18 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: Note that 10,000 and beyond will have a lot of characters, you have around two chars per digit
16:31:34 [fantasai]
glazou: 10,000 is fairly common. 100,000 is more reasonable.
16:31:42 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: I can go to 100,000 and keep things simple as they are
16:31:54 [fantasai]
glazou: I think that drastically reduces the risk of problems in the future
16:33:10 [fantasai]
sylvaing: ... the use case for high numbers is when you start at a very high number
16:33:24 [fantasai]
sylvaing: e.g. a paginated view of database results
16:33:33 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: Is it use case enough that we define how to work those things?
16:35:01 [dsinger]
as I said before, we can define conformance out to some reasonable finite limit. well, we have to.
16:35:23 [dsinger]
and then if the definition of how to go higher is referenced or provided, UAs are welcome to knock themselves out
16:36:13 [fantasai]
fantasai: So we could spend the rest of the call talking about databases, or we could resolve on what to do
16:36:58 [fantasai]
1) Define cjk counter up to 10^16 (full definition that we have ready to go, more than counter hardware limits in place now)
16:37:05 [fantasai]
2) Definte them up to 10,000
16:37:11 [fantasai]
3) Definte them up to 100,000
16:37:41 [fantasai]
4) Put both definitions in the spec, allow UA to implement either, and mark full definition at-risk to see what ppl implement in CR
16:38:24 [fantasai]
arronei: I still think that UAs /may/ support up to 100,000 but may support numbers higher and leave it undefined
16:38:50 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: You do have to define it because it's complex and ppl /will/ get it wrong
16:39:02 [fantasai]
fantasai: And we have the correct definitions already
16:39:04 [Zakim]
16:39:40 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: I don't want ppl to get fallback in one UA, correct result in another UA, and wrong result in another UA because they got it wrong
16:39:48 [Zakim]
16:40:02 [dsinger]
UAs are always at liberty to exceed requirements. you don't even have to say it
16:40:06 [fantasai]
glazou: You can always add a note that CSSWG might define beyond the limit later
16:40:08 [Zakim]
16:40:50 [fantasai]
glazou: Put the definition to 100,000, allow UAs to go beyond, and add the note
16:40:51 [dsinger]
I just think it might be safer to define what they should do beyond the conformance limit, if they want to. it can be purely informative text
16:41:11 [fantasai]
fantasai: We have tnhe definition, if we're allowing UAs to go beyond the limit, I don't see any reason not to put the definition in the spec
16:41:22 [fantasai]
TabAtkins_: I prefer 3, can live with 1
16:41:44 [dsinger]
as I say, you can't prohibit people from doing more than is required
16:41:46 [fantasai]
5) Define up to 100,000, allow UA to go beyond it, but DONT put a definition in for beyond 100,000
16:42:17 [fantasai]
6) Definte up 100,000 allow UA to go beyond it, put an informative definition in for byeond 100,000
16:42:32 [fantasai]
We'll put a note for all of them
16:43:23 [fantasai]
dweck: My knowldge is limited. Abstain
16:43:59 [fantasai]
sylvaing: I think 6 works for me
16:44:03 [dsinger]
(1) is a testing nightmare, isn't it?
16:44:10 [fantasai]
arno: Go with 3, but live with 6
16:44:19 [fantasai]
smfr: 6
16:44:27 [Zakim]
16:44:33 [smfr]
let's give Tab more work :)
16:44:36 [fantasai]
koji: I prefer 6
16:44:44 [Zakim]
16:44:49 [danielweck]
zakim, ??P10 is me
16:44:49 [Zakim]
+danielweck; got it
16:44:54 [fantasai]
arronei: 6
16:45:17 [fantasai]
c├ęsar: not sure
16:45:25 [fantasai]
Bert: no opinion
16:45:28 [fantasai]
glazou: 6
16:45:32 [fantasai]
bradk: 6
16:45:50 [fantasai]
plinss: I prefer 4, could live with 6
16:46:02 [dsinger]
dave defers to smfr (he's always right): 6
16:46:16 [fantasai_]
fantasai_ has joined #css
16:46:29 [fantasai_]
hober: I prefer 6, but happy for tab to do less work as 3
16:46:39 [fantasai_]
szilles: prefer 3, live with 6
16:46:53 [fantasai_]
johnjan: prefers 6, very against 2
16:47:10 [fantasai_]
fantasai: same as plinss
16:48:17 [fantasai_]
RESOLVED: Define up to 100,000 with fallback to cjk-decimal beyond, allow UAs to implement longhand beyond that limit, put definition in informative appendix
16:49:06 [fantasai]
16:49:12 [fantasai]
not, noresolved
16:49:57 [nimbupani]
nimbupani has joined #css
16:50:57 [nimbupani]
nimbupani has left #css
16:51:05 [Zakim]
16:51:10 [fantasai_]
fantasai summarizes email
16:51:20 [fantasai_]
TabAtkins_: I'm going to want them defined because I need them in FlexBox for similar reasons
16:51:24 [fantasai]
fantasai summarizes issues
16:51:26 [Zakim]
16:51:41 [fantasai_]
plinss: I'd like to see these width values advance as quickly as possible
16:52:47 [fantasai_]
plinss: My concern is that UAs that don't want to support vertical mode
16:52:53 [Zakim]
16:53:01 [fantasai_]
fantasai_: We can make it explicit that you can implement the module in parts, maybe make profiles
16:53:17 [fantasai]
fantasai has joined #css
16:53:32 [Zakim]
16:53:41 [fantasai_]
plinss: Is that the best place to put it?
16:53:44 [fantasai_]
fantasai: I think so
16:54:38 [fantasai_]
[...] Bert: torn between elika and peter, would be hard to split it out
16:54:49 [fantasai_]
szilles: We should get it in and get it reviewed
16:55:22 [fantasai_]
arronei: put it in values and units?
16:55:31 [fantasai_]
fantasai: no, it's very tied to layout
16:56:08 [fantasai_]
fantasai: I have to define the concepts in writing modes anyway, I can just say 'btw, here are keywords for this'
16:56:21 [fantasai_]
fantasai: Can make a new section for it
16:56:29 [fantasai_]
fantasai: right now it's an appendix, could even leave it in the appendix
16:56:35 [fantasai_]
szilles: normative appendix sounds good to me
16:56:42 [fantasai_]
plinss: and all parts Tab would refer to are in that appendix?
16:56:44 [fantasai_]
fantasai: yeah
16:57:28 [fantasai_]
fantasai: if you really want to split it out later, let's do it as an editorial change in CR
16:57:47 [szilles]
+1 for a normative appendix in Writing Modes
16:57:49 [fantasai_]
arronei: make sure it's normative
16:58:05 [fantasai_]
arron: I would prefer a separate spec, but not against making it a normative appendix
16:58:31 [fantasai_]
szilles: I agree that it really belongs in the Box Module, but it needs to be in something that's progressing faster than the box module.
16:59:13 [fantasai_]
szilles: By making it an appendix, it makes it clearer that this is a separable piece that can/might be used elsewhere
16:59:32 [fantasai_]
arronei: Maybe add a note that this might be moved to e.g. future version of box module
16:59:45 [fantasai_]
RESOLVED: Add these keywords as an appendix, add note that they might be moved
17:00:11 [fantasai_]
szilles: Would like to give 1-week notice of request to publish WD of Regions.
17:00:19 [fantasai_]
szilles: Exclusions still needs more work.
17:00:29 [fantasai_]
szilles: hyatt posted some issues to www-style
17:00:31 [fantasai_]
plinss: OK
17:00:40 [fantasai_]
Meeting closed.
17:00:40 [Zakim]
17:00:42 [Zakim]
17:00:42 [Zakim]
17:00:43 [Zakim]
17:00:43 [Zakim]
17:00:45 [Zakim]
17:00:45 [Zakim]
17:00:46 [Zakim]
17:00:48 [Zakim]
17:00:49 [Zakim]
17:00:51 [Zakim]
17:00:52 [cesar]
cesar has left #css
17:00:53 [Zakim]
- +1.415.920.aaee
17:00:55 [Zakim]
- +1.408.536.aaff
17:00:57 [Zakim]
17:00:59 [Zakim]
17:01:03 [Zakim]
17:01:04 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
17:01:05 [Zakim]
Attendees were plinss, +1.650.214.aaaa, TabAtkins, arronei, danielweck, +1.206.324.aabb, +1.408.536.aacc, arno, smfr, [Microsoft], kojiishi, johnjan, sylvaing, bradk, +050134aadd,
17:01:08 [Zakim]
... +1.415.920.aaee, Cathy_Chan, +1.408.536.aaff, +34.92.38.aagg, Bert, glazou, cesar, hober
17:01:51 [smfr]
smfr has left #css
17:16:36 [arno]
arno has joined #css
17:43:57 [fantasai]
RRSAgent: pointer
17:43:57 [RRSAgent]
17:44:00 [fantasai]
RRSAgent: make logs public
17:44:03 [fantasai]
RRSAgent: make minutes
17:44:03 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate fantasai
18:05:07 [szilles]
szilles has joined #css
18:23:15 [fantasai]
why is there a thread called Spec Annotations that talks about gradients?
18:23:25 [fantasai]
18:31:52 [fantasai]
Bert: so, on the topic of the website, how would we go about updating the template for the blog?
18:31:56 [fantasai]
Bert: Is that something I can help with?
19:08:59 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #css
19:42:58 [Bert]
Fantasai, there may be nothing to do for the blog.
19:43:11 [Bert]
The blog is a "skin" in PHP.
19:43:33 [Bert]
I already added a link to the style sheet and it seems to work without any other changes.
19:44:44 [fantasai]
19:44:54 [Bert]
Unless I discover errors, all I have to is remove the word "alternate"
19:45:57 [fantasai]
19:46:05 [Bert]
Same for all other pages. I'm testing them, but the changes are getting less and less.
19:46:18 [fantasai]
Bert, that's not the right style sheet
19:46:25 [Bert]
I'm confident I can switch by the ebd of the month.
19:46:42 [fantasai]
Bert, that's not the right style sheet
19:46:46 [fantasai]
the right style sheet is this one
19:46:50 [Bert]
It's called "Main" in the list of styles.
19:46:57 [fantasai]
I know
19:47:15 [fantasai]
that's not the style sheet for the redesign
19:47:21 [fantasai]
Main links to a different style sheet
19:47:52 [Bert]
I mainly worked from the zip file.
19:48:03 [fantasai]
what zip file?
19:48:05 [fantasai]
19:48:10 [Bert]
Still have a frustrating bug with Opera.
19:48:14 [fantasai]
19:48:17 [fantasai]
why did you use the zip file?
19:48:30 [fantasai]
why didn't you use the style we resolved on?
19:48:38 [fantasai]
why did you change things around so much for no reason??
19:48:39 [Bert]
The zip file and the one on dropbox
19:49:31 [fantasai]
I don't understand what you used
19:49:55 [fantasai]
This is the WG resolution:
19:49:58 [fantasai]
19:50:12 [fantasai]
This is the design that was resolved on :
19:50:50 [fantasai]
Why are you using anything other than what's there?
19:51:11 [fantasai]
I even put it on the W3C server for you!
19:51:14 [Bert]
The WG cannot decide on those pages, they aren't the WG's responsability.
19:51:17 [fantasai]
See, load the source, the links are to W3C
19:51:53 [fantasai]
Whose responsibility are they, then?
19:52:15 [Bert]
There were different colors on different browsers, so I had to choose.
19:52:38 [Bert]
The W3C Team, and in this case me, because I'm the Style Activity Lead.
19:54:07 [Bert]
The pages exist whether or not there are any WGs in that area.
19:55:06 [fantasai]
There were differnet colors on different browsers because they have differing levels of CSS support
19:55:09 [fantasai]
That's fine
19:55:13 [fantasai]
Nothing broke because of it
19:55:30 [fantasai]
It was designed to fall back gracefully
19:55:46 [Bert]
I also added an @media for very narrow windows, and used the background from
20:00:31 [fantasai]
Bert, I've repeatedly asked you to explain what the problem is with the style sheet that you had to go change it
20:00:43 [fantasai]
so that we could work on it together
20:00:51 [fantasai]
and get something that we all agree looks as nice as the original design
20:01:03 [fantasai]
you haven't done that
20:01:15 [fantasai]
you just went and changed things around
20:01:58 [fantasai]
I still don't understand why you think there's a problem with Divya's design
20:02:03 [fantasai]
and why we can't just use it
20:03:07 [fantasai]
So I request that you post an explanation of why you took the approach you are taking
20:03:11 [fantasai]
which is to change the design
20:03:27 [fantasai]
without any consultation with either the WG or the original designer
20:03:50 [fantasai]
or me, who did a fair bit of technical cleanup on the design
20:04:40 [fantasai]
instead of taking the approach of explaining the problems you saw with the design
20:04:42 [Bert]
I was hoping Divya would spot the differences without me pointing them out, but so far she hasn't responded, at least not with any remarks about the design.
20:04:56 [fantasai]
and working with everyone to solve those problems
20:05:12 [Bert]
I can try to make list of the things I changed.
20:06:02 [fantasai]
That's not going to help me understand why you changed them
20:06:09 [fantasai]
me or the WG
20:06:27 [Bert]
Apart from the HTML background and the color of the shadows, they are just implementation details: using em where possible instead of px, not setting the font size, things like that.
20:07:37 [Bert]
Certain things where easy to make consistent in most browsers, other things I don't so much care about.
20:08:27 [fantasai]
Ok, fine, make an exhaustive list of changes
20:08:30 [fantasai]
/with/ explanations
20:08:41 [fantasai]
so that I can work it into the style sheets I uploaded to W3C
20:08:50 [fantasai]
because those are much easier to understand
20:08:58 [fantasai]
they have more comments
20:09:09 [fantasai]
they don't use hsl notation so they work in more browsers
20:09:15 [fantasai]
they have better indentation
20:09:16 [fantasai]
20:09:57 [fantasai]
I still don't understand why you didn't use those style sheets as the base for your work
20:10:04 [fantasai]
I really really don't
20:13:48 [fantasai]
Bert: Other than using em instead of px and not setting the font size, were there other *problems* with the style sheets?
20:14:49 [fantasai]
Bert: Because understanding /why/ you changed things is a lot more useful to me than understanding /what/ you changed.
20:34:27 [arno]
arno has joined #css
21:28:47 [arronei]
arronei has joined #CSS
21:39:24 [vhardy]
vhardy has joined #css
23:08:20 [homata]
homata has joined #CSS