IRC log of css on 2012-02-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:29:49 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #css
16:29:49 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/02/15-css-irc
16:29:54 [glazou]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:57:18 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
16:57:25 [Zakim]
+??P41
16:57:31 [glazou]
Zakim, ??P41 is me
16:57:31 [Zakim]
+glazou; got it
16:57:51 [shepazu]
Zakim, code?
16:57:55 [Zakim]
the conference code is 78953 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), shepazu
16:58:18 [Zakim]
+Doug_Schepers
16:59:21 [Zakim]
+ +1.206.550.aaaa
17:00:03 [danielweck]
danielweck has joined #css
17:00:11 [stearns]
zakim, aaaa is me
17:00:12 [Zakim]
+Bert
17:00:17 [antonp]
antonp has joined #css
17:00:41 [arronei]
arronei has joined #css
17:00:46 [Zakim]
+??P53
17:00:49 [florianr]
Zakim, I am ??P53
17:00:54 [Zakim]
+stearns; got it
17:00:56 [Zakim]
+[Apple]
17:00:56 [smfr]
smfr has joined #css
17:01:08 [hober]
Zakim, Apple has me
17:01:29 [Zakim]
+glenn
17:01:35 [glazou]
Zakim, ??53 is florianr
17:01:44 [krit]
krit has joined #css
17:02:03 [Zakim]
+florianr; got it
17:02:08 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
17:02:16 [glazou]
Zakim, who is here?
17:02:23 [TabAtkins_]
TabAtkins_ has joined #css
17:02:28 [Zakim]
+hober; got it
17:02:28 [krit]
Zakim, who's here?
17:02:32 [Bert]
zakim, bert also has fantasai
17:02:35 [Zakim]
-Doug_Schepers
17:02:38 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
17:02:39 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft.a]
17:02:49 [glazou]
Zakim, WAKE UP
17:02:56 [danielweck]
Zakim, where are you?
17:03:08 [Zakim]
+??P18
17:03:08 [TabAtkins_]
I'll be in momentarily.
17:03:10 [Zakim]
sorry, glazou, I do not recognize a party named '??53'
17:03:20 [Zakim]
+plinss
17:03:21 [danielweck]
Zakim, ??P18 is me
17:03:21 [ChrisL]
ChrisL has joined #css
17:03:26 [smfr]
Zakim, Apple has me
17:03:42 [krit]
+Present krit
17:03:45 [dstorey]
dstorey has joined #css
17:03:58 [Zakim]
On the phone I see glazou, stearns, Bert, florianr, [Apple], glenn, [Microsoft], [IPcaller], [Microsoft.a], ??P18, plinss
17:04:01 [Zakim]
[Apple] has hober
17:04:11 [Zakim]
On the phone I see glazou, stearns, Bert, florianr, [Apple], glenn, [Microsoft], [IPcaller], [Microsoft.a], ??P18, plinss
17:04:16 [Zakim]
[Apple] has hober
17:04:20 [Zakim]
+fantasai; got it
17:04:32 [krit]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
17:04:32 [Zakim]
+[Apple.a]
17:04:43 [Zakim]
+??P75
17:04:46 [smfr]
Zakim, [Apple.a] is me
17:04:52 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'WAKE UP', glazou
17:04:53 [danielweck]
Zakim, ??P18 is me
17:04:56 [danielweck]
(trying again)
17:05:00 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, danielweck.
17:05:06 [Zakim]
+ +93550aabb
17:05:22 [antonp]
Zakim, aabb is me
17:05:24 [Zakim]
+danielweck; got it
17:05:38 [Zakim]
+smfr; got it
17:05:47 [fantasai]
Scribe: fantasai
17:05:57 [Zakim]
On IRC I see dstorey, ChrisL, TabAtkins_, krit, smfr, arronei, antonp, danielweck, RRSAgent, Zakim, glazou, kojiishi, glenn, nimbu, SimonSapin, florianr, tantek_, drublic, tantek,
17:06:03 [Zakim]
... karl, arronei_, leaverou, jdaggett, Bert, Hixie, shepazu, stearns, ed, alexmog, shans_away, vhardy, sylvaing_away, plinss, krijnh, macpherson, trackbot, hober, gsnedders,
17:06:04 [fantasai]
glazou: Any extra items for today?
17:06:06 [Zakim]
... paul___irish, CSSWG_LogBot, fantasai
17:06:06 [TabAtkins_]
Bleh, took enough tries.
17:06:11 [TabAtkins_]
ScribeNick: TabAtkins_
17:06:20 [fantasai]
Florian: Not sure howcome is here today; if not, shouldn't talk about GCPM
17:06:30 [Zakim]
+krit; got it
17:06:34 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: I noted that you posted clarifications about the selectors4 requests.
17:06:38 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.871.aacc
17:06:41 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: Let's move to the first item on our agenda today.
17:06:45 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: It's about -webkit- prefix.
17:06:46 [Zakim]
+smfr; got it
17:06:53 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: I had a lot of chats between the first day and yesterday.
17:06:55 [Zakim]
I already had ??P18 as danielweck, danielweck
17:06:59 [tantek]
Zakim, aacc is tantek
17:06:59 [howcome]
howcome has joined #css
17:07:01 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: That ended with the proposal I made to Brendan.
17:07:09 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: A compromise about what we could do in this WG.
17:07:12 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: Brendan Eich.
17:07:23 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: This was discussed between Brendana nd Jeff Jaffe on Monday.
17:07:26 [Zakim]
+antonp; got it
17:07:34 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: I don't know the details, but apparently the compromise goes in the right direction.
17:07:40 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: So we need to discuss and find a plan here.
17:07:43 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.253.aadd
17:07:56 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: If it's so urgent that the three browser vendors raised in Monday, we need to move forward quickly.
17:08:00 [smfr]
linky please
17:08:01 [Zakim]
+ +1.206.552.aaee
17:08:05 [Zakim]
+tantek; got it
17:08:19 [SteveZ]
SteveZ has joined #css
17:08:31 [florianr]
http://www.w3.org/mid/4F391911.307@disruptive-innovations.com
17:08:37 [tantek]
to be clear - I was at that meeting with Jeff Jaffe and Brendan on Monday
17:08:50 [danielweck]
Zakim has kicked me out
17:08:54 [danielweck]
unable to join-in
17:09:05 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
17:09:08 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: That's not a decision, it's a proposal to discuss.
17:09:15 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: It merely seemed reasonable at the time I wrote it.
17:09:21 [dbaron]
I'm getting a busy signal dialing Zakim
17:09:24 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: I'd like to discuss this, and if you have counterproposals, discuss those.
17:09:32 [SteveZ]
SteveZ has joined #css
17:09:35 [TabAtkins_]
sylvaing: What's the connection between this and what Brendan and Jeff discussed?
17:09:37 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: No idea.
17:09:45 [danielweck]
Zakim says: "enable to take your call, try again later"
17:09:45 [JohnJansen]
JohnJansen has joined #css
17:09:46 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: I was at the meeting. We discussed daniel's proposal.
17:09:56 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: I don't think anything new came out of that; it was just Jeff gaining a broder understanding.
17:10:12 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: The key point is the one I made in email - we don't have a specific list yet, and I don't think anyone has yet.
17:10:20 [SteveZ]
SteveZ has joined #css
17:10:30 [TabAtkins_]
florianr: I don't think anyone has a final list, but we should be able to give a top-5 list or something.
17:10:53 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: I can put it in a more coarse-grained fashion. We're still analyzing our data, and we don't have specific properties to propose yet.
17:10:57 [Rossen]
Rossen has joined #css
17:11:13 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: It would be very helpful for us and the group if certain specs were made to advance more quickly.
17:11:18 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: Because the syntax is stable.
17:11:24 [TabAtkins_]
florianr: I have a questiona bout your studies.
17:11:41 [TabAtkins_]
florianr: It seems that with even a little bit of study, it seems easy to come up with a simple list of stuff applicable everywhere.
17:11:47 [TabAtkins_]
florianr: So what info are you looking for?
17:12:00 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: We also find that when -webkit-border-radius is used, there's also the other prefixes or unprefixed.
17:12:12 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: So the result is, how much difference would it amek to implement -webkit-border-radius?
17:12:20 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: if the answer is "not that much difference", it's not worth doing.
17:12:29 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: So it's the question of what it's used with.
17:12:35 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: If we can avoid supproting -webkit-, great.
17:13:06 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: When we do find a property that seems to be -webkit- prefixed only, the question is:
17:13:12 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: Is it affecting the user, and hwo much?
17:13:24 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: And that's a hard question to answer without manually looking at the site.
17:13:33 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: If you can't tell the difference, what's the point of implementing it?
17:13:42 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: So we're trying to be conservative here.
17:14:05 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: The coarse data alone, though, provides us enough clues to reccommend to the WG which specs to advance faster.
17:14:28 [TabAtkins_]
florianr: I've done some studies here. I don't think there as details as yours, but I've looked for whether -webkit- is used with or without something else that opera supports.
17:14:34 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: Can you share this data?
17:14:39 [TabAtkins_]
florianr: I've sent it to the private list.
17:14:47 [florianr]
http://www.w3.org/mid/op.v9n5gsan4p7avi@localhost.localdomain
17:15:27 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: Are you making a big difference between border-radius, whichi is specified and implemented everywhere, and between properties that are more experiemental, have little or no spec, and not implemented anywhere else.
17:16:09 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: For the former, the decision to impelment -webkit- is only in your hands. There's nothing we can do on the standards side.
17:16:17 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: For the latter, we need more specs, we need faster movement.
17:16:32 [TabAtkins_]
florianr: There's a third case,w hich is important - things that are on progress, but not prefixed yet.
17:16:39 [Zakim]
-danielweck
17:16:44 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: For the second case, I think we have a problem. Most of them come from Apple.
17:16:53 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: The current specs available online are really light, to say the least.
17:16:59 [TabAtkins_]
florianr: Like text-size-adjust?
17:17:03 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: Not only that, but yes.
17:17:09 [dbaron]
did florianr say "not unprefixed yet" rather than "not prefixed yet"?
17:17:11 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: I think the definition is underspecified, to say the least.
17:17:27 [TabAtkins_]
florianr: From my data, text-size-adjust comes first among things without a spec, -webkit-appearance is next.
17:17:37 [TabAtkins_]
sylvaing: When you crawl, what UA string are you using?
17:17:45 [TabAtkins_]
florianr: wget's UA string.
17:17:56 [TabAtkins_]
sylvaing: On the mobile web, you get very different content based on the UA string.
17:18:10 [TabAtkins_]
sylvaing: If you pretend to be webkit, the results are completely different.
17:18:19 [TabAtkins_]
sylvaing: So we're trying to figure out which method to use to report the numbers.
17:18:41 [smfr]
[time check: 2 mins left on this issue; what are we trying to achieve?]
17:18:45 [TabAtkins_]
florianr: I've seen people doing mroe sophisticated analysis, and the numbers were higher if they spoofed as webkit, but the ordering was pretty similar to my method.
17:18:59 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: So, what are we going to do *now*?
17:19:14 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: We need specs for the underspecified properties, and we need analysis for the ones that need to go faster.
17:19:26 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: I think there are 3 specs that the WG needs to publish as LC asap.
17:19:37 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: And ocnsider dropping prefixes early since the syntax is stable.
17:19:44 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: Transforms, Transitions, and Animations.
17:19:48 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: 2d or 3d?
17:19:52 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: I think 2d.
17:19:58 [Zakim]
-smfr
17:19:59 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: Based on the wG discussion to split 2d and 3d.
17:20:12 [smfr]
oops
17:20:24 [TabAtkins_]
sylvaing: I think we agreed to try and advance them together, because it would be more work to pull them apart.
17:20:31 [dbaron]
smfr, you're not going to be able to dial in again, either
17:20:44 [smfr]
just did
17:20:46 [Zakim]
+[Apple.a]
17:20:53 [TabAtkins_]
florianr: going back to the things without a spec, I thinkw e're counting on webkit people to submit a spec for -webkit-text-size-adjust.
17:21:06 [TabAtkins_]
florianr: And appearance was dropped from CSS3 UI with the intent to be in CSS4 UI.
17:21:12 [dbaron]
That said, Zakim is actually *ringing* now, which is better than before.
17:21:13 [TabAtkins_]
florianr: Analysis suggests it's being used.
17:21:36 [dbaron]
I don't think appearance was dropped with intent to be in css4-ui.
17:21:38 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: I agree that it would be good to see proposals from Webkit about text-size-adjust, at least a simple draft.
17:21:42 [dbaron]
I think it was dropped because some people objected to the principle.
17:22:10 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: On appearance, based on my prop there's very little interop. Most seem to be using it for appearance:none. But I don't think there was much actual impact of using it.
17:22:21 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: So I thinkt he highest impact is text-size-adjust and the three specs I mentioned.
17:22:31 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: So let's focus on those three specs and text-size-adjust.
17:22:38 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: It seems that the syntax is not going to change.
17:22:49 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: So can we unprefix and move them forward fast?
17:22:59 [TabAtkins_]
smfr: At the f2f we decided *not* to split the transforms specs.
17:23:23 [dbaron]
I think we should just try to move all of transforms forward quickly.
17:23:24 [TabAtkins_]
smfr: And we have some demands for lTransforms syntax changes.
17:23:43 [fantasai]
Tab: Let's move transforms forward. We can adjust syntax later.
17:23:52 [dbaron]
We should reject the demands for syntax changes
17:24:31 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: So do we agree to move the Transforms spec without the syntax change?
17:24:42 [TabAtkins_]
smfr: Are yout alking about combiend 2d/3d/svg transforms spec?
17:24:50 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: Yes.
17:25:03 [TabAtkins_]
smfr: Are we going to wait for feedback from SVg, or define some conformance classes?
17:25:33 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: Has anyone shipped support for the new features?
17:25:34 [TabAtkins_]
smfr: No.
17:26:22 [TabAtkins_]
Dirk: The only difference is the three argument rotate(), so I don't think it makes sense to split from SVG right now.
17:26:26 [glenn]
presumably transforms will go to LCWD before CR, yes?
17:26:33 [dbaron]
I think the three argument rotate() should be reverted.
17:26:36 [ChrisL]
In the context of a sepc jointly edited by SVG and CSS folks, how are you "waiting for feedback" from SVG
17:26:43 [fantasai]
glenn, yes, that's required
17:26:46 [Zakim]
+[Mozilla]
17:26:47 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: I'm not opposed to new things in the future, but I think it should be at minimum split into a separate WD and published later.
17:26:49 [dbaron]
Zakim, [Mozilla] is dbaron
17:26:49 [Zakim]
+??P7
17:26:50 [Zakim]
+dbaron; got it
17:26:56 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: Or marked it as at-risk and keep moving, knowing it might not exit CR.
17:27:04 [kojiishi]
zakim, ??p7 is me
17:27:04 [Zakim]
+kojiishi; got it
17:27:12 [TabAtkins_]
smfr: The other issue is that we can't drop prefixes on 2d unless we start prefixing the 3d functions.
17:27:17 [TabAtkins_]
smfr: Which will be confusing for authors.
17:27:32 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: Why is it difficult if we have interop on 2d?
17:27:35 [ChrisL]
all the options are confusing to authors in some way
17:27:39 [TabAtkins_]
florianr: The prefixes are on the property, not the value.
17:27:46 [ChrisL]
prefixing 3d seems the least confusing option
17:28:10 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: I think the 3d functions are already too spread on the web to worry about it.
17:28:16 [fantasai]
florianr: so to unprefix 2d only, you'd have to prefix the 3d functions
17:28:24 [fantasai]
florianr: which would be confusing for authors
17:28:31 [Zakim]
+ChrisL
17:29:15 [TabAtkins_]
sylvaing: I would like a testsuite before we claim interop.
17:29:46 [TabAtkins_]
TabAtkins_: Do ytou expect any lack of interop to affect the syntax?
17:29:54 [TabAtkins_]
[unminuted talking over each other]
17:29:54 [ChrisL]
+1 to tantek's proposal
17:30:03 [TabAtkins_]
sylvaing: It's just about splitting 2d/3d.
17:30:15 [smfr]
is there anything new here that we didn't discuss at the F2F?
17:30:22 [ChrisL]
tantek proposes moving to lcwd asap and dropping prefixes at lcwd for this spec
17:30:28 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: I'm not talking about exitting CR right now, just unprefixing.
17:30:51 [Bert]
q+ fantasai
17:31:20 [Zakim]
+ +47.21.65.aaff
17:31:22 [TabAtkins_]
sylvaing: Are we making an exception to the unprefixing rule?
17:31:24 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: Yes.
17:31:54 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: Last week we discussed de facto vs de jure standards. These are de facto standards already.
17:32:39 [TabAtkins_]
[bankrupcty]
17:33:24 [dbaron]
sylvain: We have rules for dropping prefixes and I'm asking why we're making an exception?
17:33:33 [TabAtkins_]
TabAtkins_: Back to the discussion. Transform, Transitions, Animations. Drop prefixes?
17:33:42 [TabAtkins_]
TabAtkins_: Can we poll on this? Discussion seems to be going nowhere.
17:33:50 [glazou]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:33:50 [Zakim]
On the phone I see glazou, stearns, Bert, florianr, [Apple], glenn, [Microsoft], krit, [Microsoft.a], plinss, ??P75, antonp, tantek, +1.650.253.aadd, +1.206.552.aaee, [Apple.a],
17:33:54 [Zakim]
... dbaron, kojiishi, ChrisL, howcome
17:33:54 [Zakim]
[Apple] has smfr
17:33:54 [Zakim]
Bert has Bert, fantasai
17:34:07 [TabAtkins_]
Poll options:
17:34:07 [nimbu]
Zakim, aaee is me
17:34:07 [Zakim]
+nimbu; got it
17:34:11 [hober]
Zakim, Apple.a has me
17:34:11 [Zakim]
+hober; got it
17:34:16 [TabAtkins_]
1) Move Transforms/Transitions/Animations to LC and allow unprefixing.
17:34:18 [Rossen]
Zakim, Microsoft.a is me
17:34:18 [Zakim]
+Rossen; got it
17:34:42 [TabAtkins_]
2) No exception, just try to move the specs fast.
17:35:22 [fantasai]
If we're making an exception to the process, we should document that in the Snapshot *as an exception*
17:35:29 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: 1
17:35:33 [ChrisL]
chris option 1
17:35:35 [glenn]
glenn: 2
17:35:38 [TabAtkins_]
astearns: 1
17:35:47 [fantasai]
bert: 2
17:35:54 [TabAtkins_]
florianr: 1
17:36:28 [TabAtkins_]
dirk: Does option 1 mean no more syntax changes?
17:36:32 [TabAtkins_]
TabAtkins_: Yes.
17:36:34 [TabAtkins_]
smfr: 2
17:36:46 [TabAtkins_]
sylvaing: 2
17:36:55 [nimbu]
nimbu: 1
17:37:01 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: Torn, but 2.
17:37:04 [TabAtkins_]
antonp: 2
17:37:07 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: 1
17:37:07 [Rossen]
Rossen: 2
17:37:13 [TabAtkins_]
TabAtkins_: 1
17:37:14 [howcome]
howcome: 1
17:37:17 [Zakim]
-Rossen
17:37:18 [dbaron]
dbaron: 1
17:37:21 [hober]
hober: 2
17:37:22 [sylvaing]
arronei: 2
17:37:22 [krit]
krit: 2
17:37:25 [jet]
jet has joined #CSS
17:37:35 [TabAtkins_]
davidStorey: 1
17:37:45 [fantasai]
:)
17:37:58 [sylvaing]
-webkit-3?
17:38:05 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft.a]
17:38:15 [Rossen]
Zakim, Microsoft.a is me
17:38:15 [Zakim]
+Rossen; got it
17:39:06 [ChrisL]
q+
17:39:07 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: My preference woudl be to list the transforms functions we're trying to unprefix in the Exceptions clause, and work on the spec knowing that we are syntax-constrained.
17:39:25 [dbaron]
s/Exceptions clause/exceptions clause in the snapshot/
17:39:40 [ChrisL]
fantasia is voting for a modified 1 which may allow syntax changes f there are issues
17:39:49 [ChrisL]
... to avoid multiple last calls
17:39:54 [SteveZ]
SteveZ has joined #css
17:40:13 [ChrisL]
I agree with fantasai
17:40:36 [dbaron]
Yes, I'm happier with fantasai's modified (1) than with the original (1).
17:40:39 [Bert]
(I think 3 is like 1, except that we explicitly reserve (and warn!) the right to change the syntax again.)
17:40:55 [ChrisL]
3) move to LCWD, try to freeze syntax, unprefix, but still correct issues if they arise in LCWD
17:41:11 [fantasai]
fantasai: I don't agree with ignoring the issues and just pushing to CR. I also don't think any syntax change should be pushed to L4, because as sylvain says they need to be fixed now if at all.
17:41:40 [tantek]
fantasai - please don't strawman - no one is just pushing to CR
17:42:01 [TabAtkins_]
sylvaing: I don't think the process is blocking us here.
17:42:16 [fantasai]
fantasai: If people want to cycle through mutliple LCs because they feel that somehow makes it better, fine
17:42:19 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: In practice it is rarely a few weeks from first LC to CR.
17:42:51 [TabAtkins_]
ChrisL: Often it takes way longer to process results.
17:43:09 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: How long a LC do you want, Sylvain?
17:43:27 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: So we have a proposal for, what, 8 weeks LC?
17:43:35 [glenn]
does that include time for processing? 8wks seems long for comment period
17:43:57 [TabAtkins_]
ChrisL: Seems like 8 weeks for dealing with issues, not actually the comment/review period.
17:44:04 [glenn]
3-4 weeks should be enough for comments...
17:44:13 [TabAtkins_]
sylvaing: I think 3 for review, 8 for dealing seems fine.
17:44:37 [TabAtkins_]
sylvaing: I think we can realistically take this to CR in 2-3 months. If we don't think it's doable, what are we doing dropping prefixes?
17:44:48 [TabAtkins_]
dbaron: I think that in some cases, the specs are in bad shape where impls interop.
17:45:01 [TabAtkins_]
dbaron: Not saying everything, but several cases where we have interop but the spec doesn't describe it properly.
17:45:04 [TabAtkins_]
smfr: Can you give an example.
17:45:07 [TabAtkins_]
dbaron: Not off my head.
17:45:16 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: When that happened in css2.1, we just changed the spec.
17:45:27 [TabAtkins_]
dbaron: I'm not even saying the spec is different, but rather that it's unclear.
17:45:36 [TabAtkins_]
glenn: And that should be fast.
17:45:55 [TabAtkins_]
s/glenn/glazou/
17:45:56 [dbaron]
(Though I'm thinking of some aspects of the model for animations.)
17:46:27 [Rossen]
text-size-adjust is a good example of what dbaron just said
17:46:45 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: So, Sylvain, you want to drop prefixes in 11 weeks, not tomorrow, is that right?
17:46:49 [TabAtkins_]
sylvaing: I think so, yeah.
17:47:19 [TabAtkins_]
sylvaing: I don't want to make precedents for anything.
17:47:25 [Ms2ger]
Ms2ger has joined #css
17:47:27 [glenn]
where is "unprefixing rule" documented?
17:47:41 [fantasai]
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS/
17:47:58 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: No precedent, this is an exception.
17:48:06 [smfr]
glenn: the green text:http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS/#experimental
17:48:18 [glenn]
tnx
17:48:32 [TabAtkins_]
sylvaing: We ahve a spec with four impls, but there hasn't been an urgency.
17:49:12 [glazou]
hober: I think this is top priority
17:49:41 [TabAtkins_]
[more unminuted discussion, arggggg]
17:50:13 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: I suggest the 3 browser vendors that want to unprefix discuss amongst themselves.
17:50:36 [ChrisL]
q?
17:50:45 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: No consensus is emerging, despite all the discussion that has already happened.
17:50:51 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: We are *moving on*.
17:51:16 [tantek]
q+
17:51:17 [dbaron]
ack ChrisL
17:51:17 [TabAtkins_]
ChrisL: Since we don't have consensus on dropping prefixes, I think the chair should discuss moving LC forward.
17:51:22 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: Agreed.
17:51:30 [fantasai]
[unminuted discussion consisted of Sylvain arguing for just going through with the process rather than making an exception, and others arguing for making the exception]
17:51:31 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: So what are we going to do to address the issue asap.
17:51:32 [Bert]
q- fan
17:51:45 [TabAtkins_]
smfr: It seems we need to split into 3 and 4, where the new SVG stuff goes into level 4.
17:51:52 [TabAtkins_]
smfr: With the remaining issue being 3d transforms.
17:52:19 [fantasai]
[other unminuted discussion about daniel ruling that there is no consensus, and we should therefore dedicate our time to solving the issues and moving the spec forward]
17:52:21 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: I agree with smfr. I think that the problem here is not being properly understood. We'd like to implement unprefixed at the same time.
17:52:54 [dbaron]
ack tantek
17:52:58 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: Let me make it clear. If the WG cannot unprefix quickly, we (firefox) will implement -webkit- prefixes.
17:53:18 [TabAtkins_]
Dirk: Because of level 3/4 splitting, I don't think it makes sense to do the SVG stuff in two levels.
17:53:38 [TabAtkins_]
Dirk: I don't think SVG is blocking 2d transforms, maybe 3d transforms.
17:53:54 [glenn]
wouldn't it be better to go to a common prefix rather than reimplementing vendor specific prefixes? e.g., instead of simply dropping rule, encourage all vendors to support -w3-wd-... or some such?
17:53:55 [sylvaing]
i understand webkit-only properties being an issue for mobile; transforms is not in that category imo
17:54:00 [TabAtkins_]
ChrisL: We know what the differences are between SVG and CSS transforms.
17:54:46 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: For transitions and animations, you do?
17:55:02 [TabAtkins_]
sylvaing: No, I don't think any of those are killer.
17:55:24 [dbaron]
TabAtkins: sylvain, that's different from what you said at the f2f
17:55:30 [dbaron]
sylvain: No, it's consistent.
17:55:41 [fantasai]
Sylvain said that -webkit-was a problem. He did not say that transforms was a problem.
17:55:51 [TabAtkins_]
sylvaing: I don't think 3 months will make a difference. I want to prioritize and move on.
17:55:53 [krit]
krit has joined #css
17:56:29 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: If the option is between -webkit- and unprefixed, or -webkit- and nothign else, I prefer the first option. But delaying unprefixed will not delay the decision we're making.
17:56:49 [TabAtkins_]
florianr: This seems USELESS to continue discussing, since this is not working here.
17:57:13 [glenn]
would prefer a common w3c sanctioned prefix over no prefix
17:57:13 [tantek]
I want to hear from everyone who voted (2), what issues do you see as blocking LC for those 3 specs?
17:57:14 [TabAtkins_]
glenn: Moz, MS, Opera, discuss together next week and bring a COMMON position to the WG.
17:57:19 [TabAtkins_]
s/glenn/glazou/
17:57:34 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: If we end up with multiple positions in our call next week, this is a *waste of our time*.
17:57:41 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: So start that immediately in the mailing list.
17:57:48 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: tantek, can we try that?
17:58:15 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: Today we came for discussion, and I thought the 3 browser vendors had a common position. Apparently that's not the case.
17:58:34 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: So please get your positions together and bring it to the group, so we don't waste our time again.
17:58:39 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: I've put our position on the table.
17:58:45 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: I think the onus is on the objectors.
17:58:57 [glazou]
s/onus/burden
17:59:03 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: Anyone who objects, please bring reasons for why they're opposing unprefixing, or why they're opposing LC.
18:00:15 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: I suggest we adjourn on this failure status, and we work on the issues RIGHT NOW in the mailing list.
18:00:28 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: I can't declare any consuses with a 9-8 vote.
18:00:47 [Zakim]
-[Microsoft]
18:00:49 [Zakim]
-glenn
18:00:50 [Zakim]
-antonp
18:00:51 [Zakim]
-dbaron
18:00:53 [Zakim]
-krit
18:00:54 [Zakim]
-kojiishi
18:00:54 [Zakim]
-[Apple.a]
18:00:55 [antonp]
antonp has left #css
18:00:56 [Zakim]
-??P75
18:00:56 [Zakim]
- +1.650.253.aadd
18:00:58 [Zakim]
-Rossen
18:00:59 [Zakim]
-[Apple]
18:01:01 [Zakim]
-Bert
18:01:03 [Zakim]
-tantek
18:01:05 [Zakim]
-florianr
18:01:05 [glazou]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
18:01:07 [Zakim]
On the phone I see glazou, stearns, plinss, nimbu, ChrisL, howcome
18:01:09 [Zakim]
-howcome
18:01:11 [Zakim]
-stearns
18:01:20 [glazou]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
18:01:21 [Zakim]
On the phone I see glazou, plinss, nimbu, ChrisL
18:01:34 [nimbu]
what I am out of phone
18:01:35 [nimbu]
:/
18:01:41 [ChrisL]
zakim, drop nimbu
18:01:43 [Zakim]
nimbu is being disconnected
18:01:43 [Zakim]
-nimbu
18:01:47 [smfr]
smfr has left #css
18:02:21 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
18:02:52 [TabAtkins_]
tantek: Yes, please.
18:02:56 [TabAtkins_]
Also: OMG
18:03:49 [stearns]
tantek: if it goes too slowly and you end up implementing -webkit-, will you drop -webkit- once the process finally gets to the unprefixing state?
18:03:54 [tantek]
ChrisL - no, the people that objected to (1) stopped that.
18:04:05 [tantek]
stearns - unknown
18:04:16 [fantasai]
tantek: Then you needed another option: Publish LCWD now, don't drop prefixes until CR
18:04:23 [tantek]
fantasai - sure, if we have to publish multiple last calls, so be it.
18:04:44 [tantek]
no, we need to drop prefixes as part of the exception clause for the snapshot as part of this
18:05:12 [ChrisL]
tantek no. options 1 and 2 both involved moving to lcwd. the only difference was whether prefixes got dropped at lc or at cr
18:05:12 [fantasai]
tantek: we spent the entire telecon arguing about that, and got no progress on moving to LC as a result
18:05:51 [tantek]
ChrisL - no such promise was made in 2
18:05:56 [tantek]
from IRC: 2) No exception, just try to move the specs fast
18:06:01 [SteveZ]
SteveZ has joined #css
18:06:20 [glazou]
tantek: see query
18:06:58 [tantek]
fantasai - I've never had much hope for telcon productivity in general, so unfortunately I'm not that surprised.
18:11:43 [tantek]
ChrisL - I'm still planning on asking to move Transforms, Transitions, Animations to LC ASAP.
18:11:50 [tantek]
regardless of prefix discussions
18:12:03 [tantek]
btw
18:12:34 [florianr]
Forgive me being a noob, but how does it help to move a spec to LC with known issues, if we don't drop prefixes as well?
18:12:48 [howcome]
howcome has left #css
18:12:52 [tantek]
florianr - it helps force resolution of issues more quickly
18:13:00 [tantek]
which then tends to remove objections to drop prefixes
18:13:28 [Zakim]
-glazou
18:13:29 [Zakim]
-ChrisL
18:13:33 [Zakim]
-plinss
18:13:34 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
18:13:34 [Zakim]
Attendees were glazou, Doug_Schepers, +1.206.550.aaaa, Bert, stearns, glenn, florianr, [Microsoft], hober, plinss, fantasai, [Apple], +93550aabb, danielweck, smfr, krit,
18:13:34 [Zakim]
... +1.415.871.aacc, antonp, +1.650.253.aadd, +1.206.552.aaee, tantek, dbaron, kojiishi, ChrisL, +47.21.65.aaff, howcome, nimbu, Rossen
18:13:53 [fantasai]
tantek: That can be done with less process overhead by addressing issues at a high priority while implementing high-fidelity tracking
18:14:10 [fantasai]
tantek: The advantage of LC is that it pushes people to report their issues
18:14:15 [fantasai]
tantek: and review if they haven't yet
18:14:46 [tantek]
fantasai - in practice I don't believe that. In practice going to LC is what causes more quick reporting/addressing of issues.
18:14:51 [fantasai]
tantek: The disadvantage is that when you make significant changes as a result of feedback, you have to recycle through LC, which imposes 3-week minimum
18:15:01 [tantek]
fine with going thru LC again
18:15:12 [tantek]
we already agreed it would take 8 weeks *after* LC
18:15:18 [tantek]
so that gives us 2 more LC cycles :P
18:15:23 [fantasai]
heh
18:15:24 [tantek]
3 if we push to 9 weeks
18:15:32 [tantek]
<-- can do division
18:15:40 [tantek]
btw, LOTS of people have been complaining that the problem with the -webkit- prefixes being established / mobile web monoculture is that the CSSWG has not moved fast enough - e.g. @stubbornella.
18:15:52 [tantek]
today's telcon was clear support of that hypothesis
18:15:59 [tantek]
that it's the CSSWG's fault for moving too slowly.
18:16:21 [fantasai]
tantek: There were multiple telecons last December where daniel cancelled or closed early because nobody brought any issues forward for WG resolution
18:16:32 [fantasai]
tantek: Transforms issues could have been addressed during that time
18:16:37 [fantasai]
tantek: Why were they not addressed?
18:16:44 [tantek]
because it wasn't in LC
18:16:48 [tantek]
LC forces the resolutions
18:16:59 [glazou]
tantek: s/CSSWG/a few members/
18:17:01 [glazou]
please
18:17:02 [fantasai]
tantek: No it doesn't, the editor bringing up the issues to the WG does.
18:17:07 [tantek]
glazou - that's not what people see
18:17:13 [glazou]
uuuuh ?????
18:17:13 [tantek]
they see lack of consensus
18:17:17 [glazou]
and
18:17:18 [glazou]
?
18:17:18 [tantek]
they see process
18:17:22 [tantek]
etc.
18:17:27 [glazou]
we should be dictators ???
18:17:28 [fantasai]
tantek: If the spec is in LC, and the editor is MIA, nothing moves.
18:17:28 [tantek]
they see objection without providing reasons
18:17:31 [florianr]
I'll have to side with fantasai here
18:17:39 [fantasai]
tantek: Same as if the spec is in WD, and the editor is MIA, nothing moves.
18:17:40 [tantek]
fantasai - I'm working on that editor MIA aspect
18:18:11 [fantasai]
Missing In Action
18:18:13 [glazou]
Missing iIn Action
18:18:57 [fantasai]
In the last 9 months I do not recall any Transforms issues being addressed by the CSSWG except at F2Fs.
18:19:48 [glazou]
nobody ever brought that as agenda item
18:19:49 [glazou]
ever
18:19:51 [fantasai]
How can you make fast progress with that?
18:19:54 [glazou]
and we kept asking
18:19:56 [fantasai]
Exactly.
18:20:04 [glazou]
so seen from peter and I, it was NOT urgent
18:20:18 [glazou]
we have no brain scanners
18:20:25 [glazou]
we deal with what we see
18:20:30 [glazou]
and the requests we get
18:20:49 [glazou]
so I am _extremely_ upset and depressed to read some considered it's WG fault
18:20:51 [glazou]
it is NOT
18:20:56 [glazou]
name the guilty ones: MEMBERS
18:21:11 [glazou]
we do what the MEMBERS want here
18:21:16 [glazou]
always
18:21:31 [glazou]
anyway, I have to go
18:21:37 [florianr]
Here is a (perhaps naive) proposal. The chairs should make sure to nag members until each document that has reach FPWD or later has at least two editors from a different member
18:21:39 [glazou]
hope my kids will be in better shape than this WG
18:21:41 [glazou]
bye
18:21:49 [florianr]
just a second glazou
18:21:54 [glazou]
not more
18:21:58 [florianr]
what do you think of what I said above
18:22:14 [glazou]
in theory, nice ; in practice that's another story
18:22:23 [glazou]
members DO resist to such proposals
18:22:31 [glazou]
and that's not WG's responsibility but theirs
18:22:46 [glazou]
right
18:22:50 [florianr]
of course not
18:22:55 [glazou]
or an editor that disappears during six months
18:22:59 [glazou]
or more
18:23:07 [glazou]
nothing the chairs can do there
18:23:16 [glazou]
if the members don't jump on it
18:23:18 [fantasai]
but it might be nice to point it out as a risk to progress when a spec's editor list is insufficiently diverse
18:23:24 [glazou]
if that's urgent, they should act !
18:23:41 [glazou]
I really need to go, and I killed my evening enough for today
18:23:42 [glazou]
bye
18:23:47 [florianr]
bye
18:25:33 [hober]
fantasai: in the last 9 months many transforms bugs have been resolved in bugzilla & the spec. so i'm not sure what you mean when you say that that's only happened at f2fs
18:27:33 [nimbu]
i think fantasai means it doesnt get discussed in teleconfs
18:27:39 [fantasai]
yeah
18:31:15 [dbaron]
it doesn't need to get discussed in telecons to make progress
18:31:18 [dbaron]
things can happen via email
18:31:41 [dbaron]
it gives group members a distorted image of where progress is being made, though
18:31:53 [fantasai]
but if there are issues blocked on WG resolution, they should be brought up
18:32:08 [fantasai]
and if there are issues being resolved and changes being made, there should be Working Drafts published
18:32:42 [fantasai]
that both keeps the /TR page up-to-date, but also functions as a check point
18:33:06 [dbaron]
if that were as easy as pressing a button, fine
18:33:26 [dbaron]
but, frankly, it's not, so it takes time away from actually addressing issues
18:33:59 [Bert]
It almost is: just ask for a decision to publish in the WG and then I'll do the rest...
18:55:21 [tantek]
editors being MIA is a good reason to allow forking specs
18:55:43 [tantek]
Bert - getting the WG to agreed to the decision to publish is the problem
18:55:56 [tantek]
we couldn't even agree to take 3 relatively stable drafts to LC
18:56:05 [tantek]
despite sense of urgency etc.
18:56:32 [tantek]
actually, HTMLWG has it better in this way
18:56:46 [tantek]
they automatically publish latest editor's drafts as heartbeat TR WDs
18:57:00 [tantek]
unless there is a specific objection
18:57:08 [tantek]
so in practice, people being MIA or unresponsive don't block TR WD publication
18:57:09 [Ms2ger]
tantek, well yes, because they can't get consensus on anything but editorial issues
18:57:10 [fantasai]
tantek: LC is different than WD
18:57:16 [tantek]
perhaps we should switch to that model for CSSWG
18:57:27 [fantasai]
tantek: WD would get few, if any, objections
18:57:28 [tantek]
so that at least our public WDs wouldn't get 2+ years out of date :(
18:57:34 [fantasai]
tantek: LC implies that all issues are resolved, and we know they're not
18:58:05 [fantasai]
tantek: that's probably a good idea. Right now we rely on editor's to request publication, and they often dont.
18:58:14 [fantasai]
tantek: btw, you're one of those
18:58:15 [fantasai]
:)
18:58:15 [tantek]
fantasai, http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-animations/ is almost 3 years old. http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-animations/ was updated last week.
18:58:27 [fantasai]
tantek: I *know*
18:58:28 [tantek]
that's the problem I'm talking about
18:58:42 [tantek]
HTMLWG heartbeat publishing of WDs is better in that regard
18:58:47 [tantek]
we should just adopt that in the WG
18:58:50 [tantek]
CSSWG
18:59:04 [fantasai]
tantek: Makes less sense for us because we have so many specs
18:59:08 [tantek]
no
18:59:13 [tantek]
makes *more* sense
18:59:17 [fantasai]
tantek: Publishing eveyrthing that hasn't changed is not useful
18:59:24 [tantek]
too easy to miss a neglected spec
18:59:26 [Ms2ger]
Someone could write an app to compare the last update of TR and ED specs, and send email to css-wg once the difference is more than three months
18:59:30 [tantek]
fantasai - they HAVE changed
18:59:32 [tantek]
that's the problem
18:59:34 [tantek]
in the editor's draft
18:59:35 [tantek]
duh
18:59:52 [tantek]
Ms2ger - or we could make the chairs do it
18:59:52 [fantasai]
tantek: YES, we should publish THE ONES THAT HAVE CHANGED, but not EVERYTHING
18:59:56 [tantek]
the way the HTMLWG chairs do it
19:00:13 [tantek]
fantasai - why bother with the difference?
19:00:18 [tantek]
why are you making extra work?
19:00:25 [fantasai]
tantek: because people rely on the date to know when the draft was last updated
19:00:27 [tantek]
just publish updates for all of them
19:00:42 [fantasai]
tantek: No, I refuse to agree with you.
19:00:42 [tantek]
so they do for the editor's draft as well
19:00:53 [tantek]
all that's happened is that TR has become irrelevant
19:00:56 [tantek]
and people implemented ED now
19:01:04 [tantek]
so you can either ignore that and be ok
19:01:06 [tantek]
with it
19:01:09 [tantek]
or try to salvage TR
19:01:13 [fantasai]
*sigh*
19:01:17 [fantasai]
you're ridiculous
19:01:23 [fantasai]
and I am not discussing this anymore with you
19:01:28 [tantek]
and with ad hominem I'm outta here
19:01:31 [tantek]
try again tomorrow.
19:01:50 [fantasai]
but I am going to dinner now
19:01:58 [Ms2ger]
Heh
19:02:05 [Ms2ger]
Enjoy dinner
19:20:32 [krijnh]
krijnh has joined #css
19:22:58 [SteveZ]
SteveZ has joined #css
19:24:05 [drublic]
drublic has joined #css
19:28:29 [SteveZ]
SteveZ has joined #css
19:29:31 [SteveZ]
SteveZ has joined #css
19:46:58 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: I love you.
19:47:07 [plinss]
:-)
19:53:29 [SteveZ]
SteveZ has joined #css
20:03:31 [tantek_]
tantek_ has joined #css
20:05:47 [SteveZ]
SteveZ has joined #css
20:08:48 [shepazu]
plinss: I love your gavel
20:09:12 [shepazu]
THAT IS NOT A EUPHAMISM!!!!
20:09:22 [shepazu]
an euphamism?
20:10:47 [TabAtkins_]
It's spelled "stephen".
20:13:08 [krit]
krit has joined #css
20:15:26 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #css
20:33:53 [SteveZ]
SteveZ has joined #css
20:36:54 [SteveZ]
SteveZ has joined #css
20:45:41 [tpod]
tpod has joined #css
20:48:34 [tpod]
Plinss that video was pretty funny. And I've never watched The Wire either.
20:49:14 [tpod]
BTW I've created issues pages for transforms, transitions, and animations on our wiki.
20:49:48 [Ms2ger]
We've got those in bugzilla
20:56:49 [nimbu]
tpod: you are missing something really really amazing
20:57:18 [nimbu]
i may not evangelise html5 but I will evangelize The Wire
20:58:53 [SteveZ]
SteveZ has joined #css
20:59:42 [sylvaing]
The Wire is effing awesome
21:01:06 [glenn]
glenn has joined #css
21:04:39 [stearns]
thirding on the Wire. Probably the best series ever broadcast on TV.
21:09:30 [nimbu]
agreed
21:12:08 [jet]
jet has joined #CSS
21:13:57 [SteveZ_]
SteveZ_ has joined #css
21:15:25 [sylvaing]
The Sopranos is also up there
21:16:38 [sylvaing]
though the David Simon miniseries that preceded The Wire was pretty darn good too
21:27:58 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
21:43:15 [SteveZ]
SteveZ has joined #css
21:51:28 [jet]
jet has joined #CSS
22:06:47 [tpod]
tpod has joined #css
22:14:36 [tpod_]
tpod_ has joined #css
22:16:52 [miketaylr]
miketaylr has joined #css
22:40:16 [karl]
karl has joined #CSS
22:46:29 [krit]
krit has joined #css
22:49:33 [myakura]
myakura has joined #css
22:52:20 [SteveZ]
SteveZ has joined #css
23:07:55 [SteveZ_]
SteveZ_ has joined #css
23:09:39 [SteveZ_]
SteveZ_ has joined #css
23:11:38 [florian]
florian has joined #css
23:20:32 [krit]
krit has joined #css
23:35:16 [SteveZ]
SteveZ has joined #css
23:50:28 [SteveZ]
SteveZ has joined #css