IRC log of css on 2012-01-25

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:14:30 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #css
16:14:30 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:15:07 [glazou]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:15:21 [glazou]
RRSAgent, you take your time when you're invited, eh
16:15:21 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'you take your time when you're invited, eh', glazou. Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:52:30 [glenn]
glenn has joined #css
16:53:01 [dstorey]
dstorey has joined #css
16:56:47 [danielweck]
danielweck has joined #css
16:57:34 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
16:57:41 [Zakim]
16:57:44 [glazou]
Zakim, ??P42 is me
16:57:44 [Zakim]
+glazou; got it
16:57:54 [glazou]
I am 42 :-)
16:58:31 [Ms2ger]
Happy birthday :)
16:58:54 [glazou]
16:59:00 [glazou]
not my birthday
16:59:05 [glazou]
Zakim says I'm P42
16:59:09 [Zakim]
16:59:53 [JohnJansen]
JohnJansen has joined #CSS
17:00:08 [Zakim]
17:00:09 [hober]
Zakim, Apple has me
17:00:09 [Zakim]
+hober; got it
17:00:28 [Zakim]
17:00:36 [Zakim]
17:00:43 [florianr]
Zakim, I am ??P53
17:00:43 [Zakim]
+florianr; got it
17:00:48 [Zakim]
17:00:51 [oyvind]
oyvind has joined #css
17:00:52 [antonp]
antonp has joined #css
17:00:58 [danielweck]
Zakim, ??P54 is me
17:00:58 [Zakim]
+danielweck; got it
17:01:14 [JohnJansen]
Zakim, microsoft has johnjansen
17:01:14 [Zakim]
sorry, JohnJansen, I do not recognize a party named 'microsoft'
17:01:26 [Zakim]
17:01:35 [Zakim]
17:01:43 [ChrisL]
ChrisL has joined #css
17:01:44 [Zakim]
17:02:04 [JohnJansen]
Zakim, Microsoft has JOhnJansen
17:02:04 [Zakim]
+JOhnJansen; got it
17:02:06 [vhardy]
vhardy has joined #css
17:02:08 [Zakim]
17:02:15 [tantek]
tantek has joined #css
17:02:19 [Zakim]
17:02:32 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
17:02:40 [Zakim]
17:02:44 [tantek]
Good morning
17:02:46 [dbaron]
Zakim, [Mozilla] is dbaron
17:02:46 [Zakim]
+dbaron; got it
17:02:58 [Zakim]
17:03:06 [Zakim]
17:04:16 [vhardy]
ScribeNick: vhardy
17:04:17 [Zakim]
17:04:27 [glenn]
+present irc only
17:04:42 [dbaron]
Zakim, P22 is dstorey
17:04:45 [Zakim]
sorry, dbaron, I do not recognize a party named 'P22'
17:04:51 [ChrisL]
zakim, ??P22 is dstorey
17:04:51 [Zakim]
+dstorey; got it
17:04:58 [sylvaing]
sylvaing has joined #css
17:04:59 [vhardy]
glazou: we have a few extra items. The first one is about sending the agenda to the public list instead of the WG. I would like to give a few days to everyone to contribute.
17:05:17 [SteveZ]
SteveZ has joined #css
17:05:20 [Zakim]
17:05:28 [vhardy]
.... if we reach consensus, we will start to send the agenda to the public list starting from next week. If you hit reply, the regrets would go to the public list, so be careful.
17:05:54 [vhardy]
... I wanted to talk about the 2.1 issue. Anton posted a large number of 2.1 issues recently. I saw a few questions on the web about what we are doing about the errata.
17:06:09 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.832.aaaa
17:06:16 [arno]
zakim, aaaa is me
17:06:18 [vhardy]
... Peter and I discussed it and we think it would be good to work on it during the F2F to give a signal that the issues remain on the radar. Opinions about that?
17:06:19 [Zakim]
+arno; got it
17:06:34 [vhardy]
chris: I think it is good to show that 2.1 is not abandonned and is the basis for 3.
17:06:49 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.536.aabb
17:07:00 [vhardy]
johnjansen: we resolved that Bert would make sure he would have all the issues on the wiki.
17:07:07 [tantek]
glazou, +1 on sending the agenda to the public.
17:07:42 [vhardy]
anton: the majority are from the mailing list since the wiki page was created. They are new issues. I am in the process of moving the issues
17:07:54 [vhardy]
... there are about 30 of them.
17:08:15 [glazou]
#antonp { speech-rate: slower; }
17:08:21 [vhardy]
.... the ones from Jan-April 2011 need to be reviewed. It was a high volume feedback period and I want to make sure we cover all.
17:08:25 [Zakim]
17:08:36 [Zakim]
17:08:38 [vhardy]
... There are about 100 issues total that need to be taken care of.
17:08:47 [glazou]
tantek: noted
17:09:16 [kojiishi]
zakim, ??p28 is probably me
17:09:16 [Zakim]
+kojiishi?; got it
17:09:30 [tantek]
for CSS 2.1 issues, would it be possible to request that people raising them add them directly to the wiki? e.g. we could indicate that issues added to the wiki will likely get attention first (which might provide sufficient incentive for issue contributors to do so)
17:09:39 [vhardy]
... we will have 100 issues to take care of. I am trying to get them on Bugzilla before the F2F. I may only have 75 total, but I'll try to do all.
17:09:40 [tantek]
LOL plinss
17:09:51 [vhardy]
... should we have all of them in the errata. Some are easy, some hard.
17:09:56 [vhardy]
... this is the number I was expecting.
17:10:07 [vhardy]
johnjansen: do you need help?
17:10:07 [glazou]
lol plinss
17:10:16 [SteveZ]
zakim, aabb is SteveZzakim, +1.408.536.aabb is me
17:10:16 [Zakim]
I don't understand you, SteveZ
17:10:16 [bradk]
bradk has joined #css
17:10:30 [SteveZ]
zakim, aabb is me
17:10:30 [Zakim]
+SteveZ; got it
17:10:41 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.766.aacc
17:10:43 [tantek]
vhardy, depends on the conclusion of the issue. Some issues may not require a spec change but clearly still caused a question to be asked so could use an answer on a wiki page FAQ for example.
17:10:46 [vhardy]
antonp: I have done the difficult mining on the mailing list. The issue is to move the ones from the wiki. I could just copy to Bugzilla. I am trying to write bug descriptions that are understandable without having to read the whole thread.
17:11:04 [bradk]
zakim, aacc is me
17:11:04 [Zakim]
+bradk; got it
17:11:52 [vhardy]
johnjansen: we will have a large number of issues on Bugzilla and we will talk about it at the F2F, so we will demonstrate that we are focused and make progress.
17:11:58 [vhardy]
glazou: yes.
17:12:07 [vhardy]
johnjansen: I will be regrets for the F2F
17:12:11 [vhardy]
antonp: will you be there?
17:12:18 [vhardy]
17:12:26 [vhardy]
antonp: yes
17:12:52 [vhardy]
florian: as long as we schedule enough time to address significant chunks, we do not need to address all of them at the F2F.
17:13:14 [vhardy]
glazou: I agree. I plan to write a blog entry on to say we are going to address the 2.1 issues during the F2f.
17:13:31 [vhardy]
glazou: anything else?
17:13:34 [vhardy]
17:13:43 [vhardy]
Topic: New invited expert suggested by Bert.
17:13:45 [vhardy]
Bert is not here.
17:14:01 [ChrisL]
I don't know her, sorry
17:14:04 [vhardy]
glazou: Eva Kasal. I do not know her. I could not find information on the Web.
17:14:27 [Zakim]
17:14:33 [vhardy]
... Peter and I talked about it. We have a compromise suggestion. We could invite her for the last day of the F2F and in the mean time, Bert has the opportunity to tell us about her.
17:14:43 [vhardy]
chris: I think that is good.
17:15:16 [vhardy]
glazou: Unfortunately, I do not think Bert gave us an email, but I'll invite her for the last day of the F2F.
17:15:24 [vhardy]
Topic: CSS Transform parsing rules.
17:15:54 [vhardy]
vhardy: request to move to a future meeting when Dirk can be here.
17:16:02 [glazou]
17:16:02 [JohnJansen]
Zakim, Microsoft has Fantasai
17:16:02 [Zakim]
+Fantasai; got it
17:16:09 [JohnJansen]
Zakim, insert evil laugh here.
17:16:09 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'insert evil laugh here', JohnJansen
17:16:31 [tantek]
glazou - I suggest also inviting Eva to the social dinner or such related events.
17:16:33 [vhardy]
glazou: I would like everybody to review this so that it can be discussed.
17:17:26 [vhardy]
florian: it is fairly simply, there is a new feature for scripts. If your browser supports javascript and has it turned on, then you get 1, otherwise you get 0. Which is what you need to turn on styles that need to apply when you do not have script support.
17:18:22 [vhardy]
... no support for finegrained detection for situations where some scripts are enabled and some not. There is a suggestion in the proposal. It is kind of an edge case.
17:18:29 [vhardy]
rossen: what is the prime usecase for this?
17:18:40 [vhardy]
florian: because scripts may actually affect the style as they run.
17:19:21 [vhardy]
... it is different when the script that were going to modify the layout do not run. Currently, there is a javascript library that addresses that, by removing classes when scripts run. A declarative solution would be better.
17:19:31 [vhardy]
sylvaing: so we would do what Modernizr does.
17:19:51 [vhardy]
antonp: except in a less fine grained manner.
17:20:20 [vhardy]
florian: to my question. We might be able to turn what I proposed on its head and have a 'no-script' media feature instead of a 'script' media feature.
17:21:38 [vhardy]
florian: ... the problem with the script media feature is that if a browser supports javascript but does not support this media feature, then you will get the wrong style. If we do 'no-style', you would not be worse of than today.
17:22:31 [vhardy]
... if you have a media feature that is not supported in the media query, the entire query is equivalent to not all.
17:22:58 [vhardy]
... as an author, if you write script:0 rather than just script, it does the fallback properly, so may be we do not need to revert.
17:23:22 [vhardy]
antonp: I wonder about the case where you turn off the script but the media feature is supported.
17:23:26 [dbaron]
dbaron: would script:0 lead to the same error handling as no-script ?
17:23:28 [vhardy]
florian: it works in that case.
17:24:35 [vhardy]
.... what happens when the new media feature is not supporter should be least disturbing to the page.
17:24:44 [vhardy]
17:25:10 [vhardy]
... if you use it explicitly with a value, then either is fine. Without an explicit value, no-script is better.
17:25:24 [vhardy]
... if we want to add finer grain later, script() is a better option.
17:25:29 [vhardy]
... harder with no-script.
17:25:34 [vhardy]
... do we care to extend later on.
17:25:43 [vhardy]
glazou: we are not going to discuss the whole feature right now.
17:25:56 [vhardy]
florian: If people could think about it, that would help.
17:26:04 [vhardy]
glazou: will discuss at the F2F if we get enough feedback.
17:26:16 [vhardy]
Topic: GCPM Issues raised by Tab and Elika.
17:26:21 [glazou]
17:26:29 [Zakim]
17:26:45 [vhardy]
fantasai: nothing major, just things Hakon needs to take care of.
17:26:50 [vhardy]
(Hakon not on the call).
17:27:01 [vhardy]
fantasai: as long as Hakon is tracking it, we are fine.
17:27:07 [vhardy]
Topic: color tweaking.
17:27:14 [ChrisL]
17:27:59 [vhardy]
glazou: since the release of CSS 2, we got requests to do color tweaking like lighter(). We refused so far, sometimes for technical reasons, sometimes not. We need to come up with an articulated technical answer.
17:28:28 [vhardy]
chris: we originally said that filters could do that but Tab argued back and I agreed. We are lookign for a calc function.
17:29:02 [vhardy]
.... for lightness, additive is not going to be sufficient, because you lose your colors. Some sort of hue rotate seems useful functionality to me.
17:29:14 [vhardy]
glazou: what do other people thinkg?
17:29:32 [vhardy]
florian: I think it did not make sense to address before variables. I think a big blocker has been removed.
17:29:39 [vhardy]
glazou: I tend to agree with that.
17:29:49 [vhardy]
... I think variables will be immensly useful here.
17:29:55 [vhardy]
glazou: how could we do that.
17:30:11 [vhardy]
fantasai: until we have a concrete proposal, we are not going to make progress on a telecon.
17:30:21 [vhardy]
glazou: but do we want to dedicate time on that.
17:30:24 [Zakim]
17:30:34 [vhardy]
chris: yes, and we already have filter functions/equations that could be reused here.
17:30:38 [tantek]
I'd like to see examples of real world web pages where authors are currently doing color lightening/darkening (by any method, CSS preprocessing, or in a javascript function etc.) before committing to adding it to CSS.
17:30:42 [Zakim]
17:30:45 [danielweck]
Zakim, ??P7 is me
17:30:45 [Zakim]
+danielweck; got it
17:30:58 [ChrisL]
17:31:05 [tantek]
I'm not convinced it is something that is broadly necessary, feels more like a "wouldn't it be cool if" type of feature request.
17:31:18 [vhardy]
ACTION: Chris to create a concrete proposal to address the color tweaking requirement.
17:31:19 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-417 - Create a concrete proposal to address the color tweaking requirement. [on Chris Lilley - due 2012-02-01].
17:31:25 [sylvaing]
I think this is something that makes sense once you have variables
17:31:32 [tantek]
if there's an advocate for this feature, please capture it as a theoretical request for css4-color on the wiki.
17:31:45 [vhardy]
glazou: a lot of people have been asking for that at the Paris web conference, they were all web authors.
17:31:58 [sylvaing]
I even think it's a variable scenario, period
17:32:08 [vhardy]
glazou: anything else to discuss now?
17:32:13 [tantek]
(until someone shows at least *some* real world attempts at doing so, so far I have seen none in the emails)
17:32:20 [vhardy]
glazou: meal restrictions?
17:32:48 [vhardy]
.. please send me the dietary restrictions.
17:32:55 [vhardy]
... before the F2F.
17:33:06 [sylvaing]
tantek, there is one on the list: designer defines a color scheme for an entire design then wants to adjust it in one place vs. overwriting each instance of a color value all over the place
17:33:10 [vhardy]
... we will not be able to have food during the F2F in the meeting room.
17:33:18 [tantek]
should we put a "food prefs" column on the f2f wiki page table of attendees?
17:33:34 [vhardy]
... there are restrictions about what can be done in the meeting rooms.
17:33:39 [bradk]
Here is an example of a color tweaker on the Web that includes tint and saturation variations of a base color:
17:33:49 [tantek]
sylvaing - I know the use-case, I just didn't see a page on the web doing so. (URL?)
17:33:55 [vhardy]
florian: I wanted to ask something about media queries.
17:34:13 [vhardy]
... device pixel ratio is a media feature. It exists in various browsers (WK, Opera have it).
17:34:25 [vhardy]
... that seems useful, we should add it to the next level of media queries.
17:34:28 [sylvaing]
tantek, why would you see it on a page? by the time the page is out the color scheme has been tweaked
17:34:30 [tantek]
bradk - I agree there are tools for doing so, now show me a URL with tweaked colors where the author has used that tool to do so
17:34:57 [tantek]
sylvaing - I'm asking for examples of pages from authors where they simply claim they've had to do such math (or used a tool) beforehand
17:35:02 [tantek]
with actual color values we can look at
17:35:34 [Rossen]
Rossen has joined #css
17:35:35 [vhardy]
dbaron: I looked at the images draft, and I think there is a better way to do it. The image value draft introducts the dppx (dot per px) unit. If you have that unit, you do not need a new media query. All you do is use these ddpx units and query on resolution.
17:35:38 [dbaron]
dbaron: css3-images introduces a new unit, dppx, for dots per CSS pixel
17:35:57 [vhardy]
florian: the primary usecase is when you are on a device with a px that maps to many device pixels.
17:35:59 [bradk]
tantek - I think that would be hard to prove.
17:36:09 [vhardy]
... the device pixel ratio was more explicity about that.
17:36:35 [sylvaing]
tantek - i don't follow. you want me to provide a page where the same color values are used multiple times?
17:36:44 [tantek]
bradk - not asking for "proof", just for authors statement thereof
17:36:54 [vhardy]
edward: I prefer the media query since it is already implemented.
17:36:58 [vhardy]
fantasai: is it prefixed?
17:37:02 [tantek]
"this is a page I built by hand with tweaked colors, example: color1, color2 which is a lighter/version of color1" etc.
17:37:04 [vhardy]
florian: yes.
17:37:16 [vhardy]
fantasai: then, I do not see a reason to standardize it.
17:37:31 [sylvaing]
tantek - the use-case is called css variables. easy color tweaking by designers is a special case of that imo
17:37:34 [vhardy]
florian: if we standardize, we can drop prefixes.
17:37:45 [vhardy]
fantasai: if we standardize, we can just use the resolution.
17:37:50 [vhardy]
florian: why not.
17:38:02 [tantek]
sylvaing, css variables is not a "use-case" it's a solution.
17:38:30 [sylvaing]
tantek - fine; this is one css variables use-case
17:38:48 [bradk]
tantek, that just seems extremely unlikely that a designer would go into such detail about how he/she figured out the colors that are all shades or saturation variations of each other.
17:38:52 [vhardy]
florian: I am a bit confused. Do we need to change anything about how resolution is defined?
17:39:10 [vhardy]
dbaron: no, I do not think so. Just use dppx with the resoulution.
17:39:20 [tantek]
glazou - note that I'm not saying "don't do it", I'm simply saying I will classify this as a theoretical use-case until someone provides real-world URLs of authors manually (or through a script etc.) doing it.
17:39:24 [vhardy]
fantasai: just make sure there is an example, that should be good.
17:39:45 [vhardy]
florian: sure. For the next level of media queries, we just need an example with that unit and we are good?
17:39:47 [tantek]
and theoretical use-case doesn't mean don't do it, it means it gets lower priority than real-world use-cases / problems.
17:39:48 [vhardy]
dbaron: I think so.
17:40:08 [vhardy]
florian: I'll get feedback from Opera implementors. Seems like it would work.
17:40:10 [sylvaing]
tantek - you cannot find such a URL. all you can see is a page after it's been tweaked.
17:40:17 [tantek]
sylvaing - see above.
17:40:20 [vhardy]
florain: that is all I had on this topic.
17:40:34 [sylvaing]
tantek: ok, i don't get it.
17:40:35 [vhardy]
fantasia: Background and borders issues from previous call.
17:40:36 [fantasai]
CSS3 Background: Applying box-decoration-break to bidi-induced splits (ISSUE-182)
17:40:58 [tantek]
sylvaing, from above: [17:36] tantek: bradk - not asking for "proof", just for authors statement thereof
17:40:59 [tantek]
[17:37] tantek: "this is a page I built by hand with tweaked colors, example: color1, color2 which is a lighter/version of color1" etc.
17:41:25 [sylvaing]
tantek, then give that answer to the authors on www-style who ask for it?
17:41:29 [tantek]
and you *could* find such a URL if there were a javascript library that did lightening.
17:41:38 [vhardy]
dbaron: do we define precisely where the splits happen?
17:41:41 [glazou]
tantek: will post a call for contributions on color tweaking on my blog, with my co-chair hat on
17:41:42 [tantek]
sylvaing, burden is on the feature requester.
17:41:54 [sylvaing]
tantek i think doing this with JS is specifically a non-goal for authors
17:41:58 [tantek]
otherwise, I may get to it eventually with adding it to the css4-color wiki page
17:41:59 [glazou]
17:42:04 [vhardy]
... I worry that different implementations may split in different places and if borders show up, then we have issues.
17:42:16 [vhardy]
fantasai: wouldn't you have the same issues even without the borders.
17:42:20 [sylvaing]
tantek, anyway. we don't need to resolve this now and we're adding noise to IRC
17:42:38 [tantek]
sylvaing - not asking for pre-existing JS library as a requirement, that's just one way of demonstrating an existing real-world use-case
17:42:39 [vhardy]
dbaron: with borders, you only see where the begining and end are. YOu do not not see all the pieces.
17:42:44 [tantek]
saying it's a non-goal is not useful
17:42:56 [vhardy]
... does box-decoration-break also affect that?
17:42:59 [vhardy]
fantasai: yes.
17:43:20 [vhardy]
dbaron: I am afraid of that. Implementations may put extra breaks in that do not cause problems but are not necessary needed.
17:43:24 [vhardy]
... may be they don't.
17:43:34 [vhardy]
fantasai: how do we address your concerns.
17:43:50 [vhardy]
dbaron: we need to specify what those bidi splits are and see if they are interoperable.
17:44:07 [vhardy]
fantasai: I think that should be a separate issue. If we decide it does not apply, then it does not apply ever.
17:44:09 [tantek]
in general, if authors are using a JS library (or server-side library, like SASS) to achieve some presentational effect, then it may be a good candidate for consideration for a CSS feature. but absence of such library does not prove anything, so saying no such library would be expected to exist is also not useful.
17:44:28 [vhardy]
dbaron: if we go with does not apply, then fine. However, if they do apply, then we need to address the issue.
17:44:53 [vhardy]
fantasai: could we say that if two pieces of the same box are exactly adjacent, then they should be treated as one box.
17:45:14 [vhardy]
dbaron: this is scary. We would need to go rewrite our implementations for something for which there is no demonstrated use cases.
17:45:34 [vhardy]
fantasai: today, if there are two adjacent boxes, they are treated as a single piece.
17:45:44 [vhardy]
dbaron: would that still be true if the breaks applied?
17:46:21 [vhardy]
... I think you make a bunch of assumptions. I do not know it is true that implementaitons merge boxes like you said.
17:46:34 [vhardy]
fantasai: I did not say they should. They need to render as if.
17:46:53 [vhardy]
dbaron: my position is that the breaks should not apply, but I am not sure.
17:47:18 [vhardy]
brad: what are the use cases?
17:47:36 [vhardy]
dbaron: I want to know the use cases and what implementations do now.
17:48:28 [vhardy]
fantasai: I do not think we have use cases, because I do not when you would visually highlighting that boxes are discontinous due to bidi reordering. You would typically not decorate it. It would look weird.
17:49:04 [vhardy]
.. the problem is not use cases. We have a feature that applies to boxes that split and it is not defined what happens in that case. We can say that it does not apply or that it applies.
17:49:16 [vhardy]
dbaron: I would like to know what implementations do and what the use cases are.
17:49:35 [vhardy]
fantasai: there is no use case to put decorations on boxes that are split because of bidi reordering.
17:49:45 [Zakim]
17:50:01 [vhardy]
dbaron: I think that what implementations do now is probably what people do not want. Right now they do apply box decoration breaks to bidi splits.
17:50:10 [tantek]
fantasai - test case that demonstrates the situation you are discussing / asking for clarification/definition on?
17:50:16 [tantek]
17:50:42 [vhardy]
.. if you put border on an inline with bidi reordering, you will see the effect, even if the boxes are contiguous. Should the spec. say that, or should the spec. have bidi reordered boxes with merges.
17:51:01 [vhardy]
fantasai: if we do not have a use case, and we do not seem to have one, it seems better to leave this undefined.
17:51:07 [vhardy]
17:51:25 [vhardy]
dbaron: there are questions about whether people put borders on inlines in the first place.
17:51:34 [vhardy]
plinss: people do that, I have seen it.
17:51:45 [dbaron]
dbaron: ... and thus whether to bother with box-decoration-break at all
17:52:04 [vhardy]
brad: most people would not want a border between two words becase a word goes in the opposite direction. We should say that in the spec. and explains it does not apply.
17:52:12 [vhardy]
fantasai: I am happy with florian's suggestion.
17:52:19 [vhardy]
plinss: I think we need to specify it.
17:52:35 [vhardy]
florian: we could start with undefined and then nail it down later.
17:52:42 [vhardy]
... when we have use cases.
17:53:06 [glenn]
adobe in-design arabic version supports this type of feature, but proprietary format
17:53:27 [vhardy]
glazou: any more comments?
17:53:30 [vhardy]
17:53:48 [fantasai]
17:53:51 [vhardy]
szilles: what is the conclusion?
17:54:03 [vhardy]
... I thought there was support for what florian was proposing.
17:54:20 [vhardy]
brad: I think it should be defined. I do not think we should default to whatever uas do.
17:54:30 [vhardy]
fantasai: whatever you do, it looks weird.
17:54:52 [vhardy]
szilles: at a minimum, there should be a comment saying that we are looking for use cases.
17:55:16 [dbaron]!DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0A%3Cspan%20style%3D%22border%3A%201px%20solid%20black%3B-moz-background-inline-policy%3A%20each-box%3B%20background-image%3A%20url(
17:55:17 [vhardy]
... brad, I think we should leave it undefined and say so, is that it will drive people to come up with use cases if there are any.
17:56:00 [vhardy]
dbaron: the url I pasted, shows that there are two boxes in this case. If we started to apply it, we would get bad results. May be we need to resolve this problem.
17:56:27 [vhardy]
.... I think that getting it right for the bidi cases is going to be hard implementation-wise.
17:57:03 [vhardy]
florian: we do not want to rewrite all our code. I say we should not define it until we have use cases. Until then, say it is undefined.
17:57:17 [vhardy]
brad: then we end up with incompatibility.
17:57:24 [vhardy]
fantasai: yes, but it is a weird edge case.
17:57:39 [SteveZ]
+1 for Florian's statement
17:57:47 [vhardy]
florian: may be it is better to let implementations do different things, and later consolidate on the best behavior.
17:57:59 [vhardy]
dbaron: I think the use cases are the same as borders on inlines.
17:58:08 [vhardy]
... some people probably want it to look like this.
17:58:24 [vhardy]
... then people who write in arabic for example, may have these use cases.
17:58:36 [vhardy]
... if you want borders around the boxes instead of open borders
17:58:56 [vhardy]
.... The right behavior is not obvious and hard to implement.
17:59:06 [dbaron]
s/not obvious/obvious/
17:59:18 [vhardy]
... we want the borders to close where the borders are physically separated.
17:59:25 [vhardy]
fantasai: we could give two options:
17:59:33 [vhardy]
... close the borders when they are separated
17:59:54 [vhardy]
... treat bidi split as always slicing.
18:00:32 [Zakim]
18:00:32 [vhardy]
... an implmentation would be conformant if it does slicing or if it does the 'correct' behavior. If it cannot, it can treat it as slice.
18:00:33 [Zakim]
18:00:42 [vhardy]
... then we can see how uas implement it.
18:00:44 [Zakim]
18:01:04 [danielweck]
Just been kicked-out, can't get back in :(
18:01:04 [vhardy]
glazou: we are not going to resolve this issue today.
18:01:10 [vhardy]
florian: can we agree on the next step?
18:01:30 [glazou]
danielweck: zakim is so painful sometimes, sorry for that
18:01:49 [vhardy]
florian: given dbaron's feedback, I do not think we should define the behavior until we are clear on the desired result.
18:02:00 [Zakim]
18:02:46 [dbaron]
I think we are clear on the desired result but it requires defining a whole bunch of new things we don't have already, and it's not clear to me whether it's worth doing that.
18:03:25 [vhardy]
glazou: we should get back to this during the F2F.
18:03:41 [Zakim]
18:03:52 [dbaron]
I think this is a pretty classic example of the problem I described in
18:03:52 [Zakim]
18:03:53 [Zakim]
18:03:55 [Zakim]
18:03:55 [Zakim]
18:03:56 [Zakim]
18:03:56 [Zakim]
18:03:57 [Zakim]
18:03:57 [Zakim]
18:03:59 [Zakim]
18:04:03 [Zakim]
18:04:10 [Zakim]
18:04:12 [Zakim]
18:04:14 [Zakim]
18:04:45 [Zakim]
18:05:55 [danielweck]
danielweck has left #css
18:09:46 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, alexmog, in Style_CSS FP()12:00PM
18:09:48 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
18:09:51 [Zakim]
Attendees were glazou, plinss, hober, stearns, florianr, danielweck, antonp, JOhnJansen, Oliver_Goldman, dbaron, ChrisL, fantasai, dstorey, sylvaing, +1.415.832.aaaa, arno,
18:09:53 [Zakim]
... +1.408.536.aabb, alexmog, kojiishi?, SteveZ, +1.650.766.aacc, bradk, GlennAdams
18:11:56 [oyvind]
oyvind has left #css
18:27:03 [nimbu]
nimbu has joined #css
18:38:20 [arno]
arno has joined #css
18:38:31 [arno]
arno has joined #css
18:40:24 [arno]
arno has joined #css
18:54:53 [drublic]
drublic has joined #css
19:13:07 [arno]
arno has joined #css
19:33:58 [arno1]
arno1 has joined #css
19:55:22 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #css
20:33:41 [arno]
arno has joined #css
20:44:04 [glenn]
glenn has left #css
21:03:58 [arno]
arno has joined #css
22:06:40 [arno]
arno has joined #css
22:14:56 [arno]
arno has joined #css
22:22:21 [arno]
arno has joined #css
22:23:04 [tantek]
tantek has joined #css
22:49:41 [ksweeney]
ksweeney has joined #css
22:55:12 [dholbert]
dholbert has joined #css
22:57:46 [arno]
arno has joined #css
23:15:32 [ksweeney]
ksweeney has joined #css
23:16:24 [ksweeney]
ksweeney has joined #css
23:17:08 [ksweeney]
ksweeney has left #css
23:46:26 [leaverou]
leaverou has joined #css
23:50:31 [leaverou]
leaverou has joined #css