16:14:55 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #css
16:14:55 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/03/07-css-irc
16:15:00 <glazou> Zakim, this will be Style
16:15:00 <Zakim> ok, glazou; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 45 minutes
16:15:05 <glazou> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:20:10 <tantek> tantek has joined #css
16:23:19 <kojiish__> kojiish__ has joined #css
16:23:44 <kojiishi_> kojiishi_ has joined #css
16:28:48 <Ms2ger> Ms2ger has joined #css
16:44:42 <SimonSapin> SimonSapin has joined #css
16:51:19 <glazou> Zakim, code?
16:51:19 <Zakim> the conference code is 78953 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), glazou
16:53:37 <antonp> antonp has joined #css
16:55:50 <Zakim> Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
16:55:56 <bradk> bradk has joined #css
16:55:57 <Zakim> +??P39
16:56:04 <glazou> Zakim, ??P39 is me
16:56:04 <Zakim> +glazou; got it
16:57:18 <Zakim> + +1.206.324.aaaa
16:57:30 <sylvaing> Zakim, aaaa is sylvaing
16:57:30 <Zakim> +sylvaing; got it
16:57:32 <katie> katie has joined #css
16:58:12 <oyvind> oyvind has joined #css
16:58:35 <Zakim> + +1.408.536.aabb
16:58:48 <Zakim> + +93550aacc
16:58:54 <glazou> Zakim, aabb szilles
16:58:54 <Zakim> I don't understand 'aabb szilles', glazou
16:58:59 <antonp> Zakim, aacc is me
16:58:59 <Zakim> +antonp; got it
16:58:59 <glazou> Zakim, aabb is szilles
16:59:00 <Zakim> +szilles; got it
16:59:58 <Zakim> + +1.619.846.aadd
17:00:14 <hober> Zakim, aadd is me
17:00:14 <Zakim> +hober; got it
17:00:37 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
17:00:37 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
17:00:44 <JohnJansen> JohnJansen has joined #css
17:00:50 <tantek> tantek has joined #css
17:01:06 <SteveZ> SteveZ has joined #css
17:01:06 <Zakim> +Bert
17:01:09 <JohnJansen> Zakim, Microsoft has JohnJansen
17:01:09 <Zakim> +JohnJansen; got it
17:01:11 <Zakim> + +1.415.832.aaee
17:01:19 <tantek> good morning
17:01:31 <Zakim> +[Mozilla]
17:01:33 <Zakim> +??P65
17:01:50 <glenn> zakim, ??p65 is me
17:01:50 <Zakim> +glenn; got it
17:02:02 <Zakim> + +1.206.552.aaff
17:02:03 <glenn> zakim, mute me
17:02:04 <Zakim> glenn should now be muted
17:02:06 <krit> krit has joined #css
17:02:22 <glazou> Zakim, aaee is katie 
17:02:23 <Zakim> +katie; got it
17:02:29 <glazou> Zakim, aaee is krit
17:02:33 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #css
17:02:34 <Zakim> sorry, glazou, I do not recognize a party named 'aaee'
17:02:50 <dbaron> Zakim, [Mozilla] is dbaron
17:02:50 <Zakim> +dbaron; got it
17:03:00 <Zakim> +??P74
17:03:08 <florianr> Zakim, I am ??P74
17:03:08 <Zakim> +florianr; got it
17:03:11 <katie> Zakim, [Microsofta] is katie
17:03:11 <Zakim> +katie; got it
17:03:14 <glazou> Zakim, katie is krit
17:03:14 <Zakim> +krit; got it
17:03:23 <nimbu> Zakim: aaff is me
17:03:29 <glazou> Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:03:29 <Zakim> On the phone I see glazou, sylvaing, szilles, antonp, hober, [Microsoft], katie.a, Bert, krit, dbaron, glenn (muted), +1.206.552.aaff, florianr
17:03:32 <Zakim> [Microsoft] has JohnJansen
17:03:32 <nimbu> Zakim, aaff is me
17:03:32 <Zakim> +nimbu; got it
17:03:54 <katie> rookie moves. :)
17:03:58 <nimbu> :)
17:04:11 <Cathy> Cathy has joined #css
17:04:13 <Ms2ger> Ms2ger has joined #css
17:05:36 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
17:05:42 <arronei_> zakim, microsoft.a has me
17:05:42 <Zakim> +arronei_; got it
17:05:44 <ChrisL> ChrisL has joined #css
17:06:20 <tantek> tantek has joined #css
17:06:37 <glazou> ScribeNick: antonp 
17:07:19 <ksweeney> ksweeney has left #css
17:07:27 <antonp> Topic: css3-transforms
17:07:30 <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Mar/0117.html
17:07:42 <antonp> ??: 2 related issues :
17:07:51 <glazou> s/??/krit
17:07:56 <antonp> transform-origin vs background-position syntax
17:08:28 <antonp> ... should we try to achieve a common syntax, ie use background-position syntax
17:08:38 <antonp> ??: would the change break compat?
17:08:45 <glazou> s/??/sylvaing
17:08:47 <Zakim> +ChrisL
17:08:58 <Zakim> +??P18
17:09:04 <kojiishi> zakim, ??p18 is me
17:09:04 <Zakim> +kojiishi; got it
17:09:05 <antonp> sylvaing: don't want to break interop
17:09:23 <antonp> florianr: keep interop
17:09:57 <antonp> ??: 1-value or 2-value doesn't really matter
17:10:03 <glazou> s/??/krit
17:10:06 <smfr> smfr has joined #css
17:10:34 <Zakim> + +1.408.636.aagg
17:10:48 <smfr> Zakim, aagg is me
17:10:48 <Zakim> +smfr; got it
17:11:01 <antonp> ??: would a new conforming implementation force authors to rewrite existing code?
17:11:06 <glazou> s//??/sylvaing
17:11:17 <antonp> ... don't want to revisit gradiants debacle
17:11:41 <antonp> smfr: don't know if there would be breakage; but it's unlikely
17:11:51 <antonp> dbaron: not clear how the change would work
17:12:20 <antonp> smfr: first option: use a new param 'z'
17:12:31 <antonp> ... second option: [...]
17:12:46 <smfr> s/param/property, transform-origin-z
17:12:52 <antonp> ... separate 2-d part from 3-d part by a slash
17:13:26 <antonp> florianr: if we have support for calc, whatever works right now could continue working, and we open new possiblities
17:14:07 <Zakim> + +1.650.766.aahh
17:14:25 <bradk> zakim, aahh is me
17:14:25 <Zakim> +bradk; got it
17:14:38 <sylvaing> My ask is that existing content works unchanged since authors have already 'future-proofed' their code with unprefixed transform-origin. As long as that's preserved to the largest possible extent, I'm good
17:15:04 <krit> background-postion and trtansform orgin share the same behavior. So why not harmonize the syntax of both
17:15:28 <glazou> florian: my position is the same as sylvaing's
17:15:52 <antonp> various: whatever we do, existing content should not break
17:16:28 <sylvaing> krit: why not would be if the change broke content. given that we aim to standardize what is already interoperable it would be undesirable. 
17:16:30 <antonp> smfr: some but not very much
17:16:32 <krit> is there content that uses transform-origin for translationg on z-axis
17:16:39 <antonp> smfr: some but not very much
17:16:54 <antonp> kirt: no conclusion on www-style
17:17:17 <antonp> krit: smfr, would change break content?
17:17:27 <antonp> smfr: I'm not sure. I'd have to see
17:17:28 <tantek> tantek has joined #css
17:17:37 <antonp> florianr: [...]
17:17:54 <antonp> dbaron: no concrete proposal; can't check if things break, without a proposal
17:18:12 <antonp> sylvaing: don't want to break 2d, but some 3d breakage might be acceptable
17:18:27 <antonp> dbaron: 1 option is to say not bother with concrete proposal, just keep things as they are
17:18:44 <antonp> ChrisL: what's the disadvantage from keeping things as is?
17:18:58 <antonp> dbaron: it doesn't work like background-position
17:19:09 <antonp> Bert: problem is that it's different but similar; confusing
17:19:12 <florianr> s/[...]/What I hear you saying is that changing would not break anything on 2d, and may break 3d, but there is not much content relying on it./
17:19:21 <antonp> ChrisL: we're not designing from scratch, so we can live with it
17:19:44 <dbaron> I'm also inclined to just leave it as it is (i.e., matching CSS2 background-position but not css3-background background-position)
17:19:49 <antonp> 1st value means translation on horizontal axis, 2nd value is vert translation, 3rd value is z
17:20:10 <ChrisL> I am not hearing a really high value to changing from the current syntax
17:20:12 <antonp> krit: calc isn't yet implemented everywhere; it could solve problem in future
17:20:43 <antonp> ??: if we keep transform-origin as is, could we change background-position
17:20:47 <glazou> s/??/hober
17:20:59 <antonp> krit: no way to change background-position; it's already in use
17:21:08 <antonp> florianr: it's too late for this discussion
17:21:32 <antonp> florianr: could live with a change if it doesn't break 2d, but neutral about it
17:21:39 <ChrisL> +1 to not changing
17:21:46 <antonp> glazou: people are saying it's not worth the hassle of changing
17:22:31 <antonp> ??  (sylvaing?): there's already content using the current stuff, no-one is complaining. not a problem in real world
17:22:39 <antonp> ChrisL: let's drop change and move on
17:22:52 <antonp> glazou: no objections
17:22:59 <antonp> RESOLVED: no change to syntaxes
17:23:01 <Zakim> -krit
17:23:22 <antonp> Topic: Media Queries
17:23:33 <antonp> florianr: 2 imps pass test suite: Op and Fx
17:23:39 <ChrisL> pointer to imp reports?
17:23:42 <antonp> .. not many changes, jhust editorial
17:23:51 <antonp> ... let's publish!
17:23:56 <antonp> ChrisL: excellent!
17:24:11 <oyvind> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Mar/0083.html
17:24:15 <antonp> florianr: i've sent an imp report to www-style
17:24:16 <dbaron> changes list is http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-mediaqueries/#changes-2010
17:24:31 <antonp> florianr: do I have to do anything as an editor?  Or does Bert do it
17:24:35 <dbaron> implementation reports at http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/MediaQueries/20120229/reports/implement-report.html
17:24:47 <antonp> ChrisL: transition call to Director... point to test results
17:25:05 <antonp> ... next thing: transition call
17:25:17 <dbaron> ChrisL: But you, the editor, don't need to do that.
17:25:21 <antonp> RESOLVED: publish Media Queries as a Proposed Rec
17:25:29 <ChrisL> rrsagent, here
17:25:29 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2012/03/07-css-irc#T17-25-29
17:25:30 <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Feb/1083.html
17:25:31 <antonp> Topic: transitions issues
17:26:07 <antonp> dbaron: last time: no transition when duration and delay are both zero
17:26:26 <antonp> ... Next one: rules for interpolating font-weight
17:26:29 <Zakim> +??P7
17:26:42 <antonp> ... current ED says font-weight is interpolated as a number
17:26:58 <antonp> ... it's not quite right since 100 - 900 that are multiples of 1000
17:27:25 <antonp> .. [something about rounding]
17:27:25 <florianr> s/100/1000/
17:27:25 <florianr> s/1000/100/
17:27:26 <antonp> ... it's an ordered series of keywords.  In Gecko, implemented interpolation of font-stretch
17:27:41 <antonp> ??: ordered sequence of keywords that could be animated
17:28:04 <antonp> dbaron: Question is: who implements what?  Gecko implementes interpolation as mentioned above.  What do others do
17:28:10 <glazou> s/??/sylvaing
17:28:20 <antonp> florianr: I don't know what we do, but I don't have anything against it
17:28:30 <bradk> How about font-size keywords?
17:28:32 <antonp> smfr: webkit: not interpolate font-weight
17:28:46 <antonp> dbaron: I think you /do/ interpolate font-weight
17:29:22 <antonp> ChrisL: unclear whether font-weight varies continuously, or is it just keywords that happen to be numeric
17:29:29 <antonp> florianr: but they are ordered
17:29:40 <antonp> ChrisL: makes sense to interpolate and snap to nearest 100
17:29:51 <antonp> szilles: defined in font match algorithm?
17:30:01 <antonp> ... there are fonts with a weight of 250
17:30:06 <Bert> q+ to say that the font algo may make the transition less than smooth...
17:30:06 <antonp> dbaron: that doesn't match to CSS tho
17:30:22 <antonp> ChrisL: what OpenType abnd CSS do are related but not identical
17:30:32 <antonp> szilles: we should use the same mapping here
17:30:52 <antonp> Bert: even though they are ordered, algo means that the steps are not uniform
17:31:03 <antonp> s/algo/algorithm/
17:31:12 <antonp> ... not sure we want to animate font-weight
17:31:31 <antonp> szilles: gonna have strange effects in any case, since few fonts have a continuous range
17:31:46 <antonp> glazou: authors will check transitions anyway; if they like it, they'll do it
17:31:57 <antonp> szilles: costs effort to implement.  Is there any use in this?
17:32:10 <antonp> Bert: authors won't see problems, because their fonts are not the same as other peoples'
17:32:37 <antonp> ChrisL: nowadays, people provide fonts with the pages, and better ways of specifying weights, so authors will feel more confdent to use this
17:32:54 <antonp> ??: it's definitely possible to author with this; there are examples
17:33:06 <glazou> s/??/sylvaing
17:33:25 <antonp> [missed stuff]
17:33:42 <antonp> expression of worries about equivalence with font matching algorithm
17:34:00 <antonp> florianr: start with 100, then you go match things
17:34:23 <antonp> szilles: ah, you're saying that the animation is continuous but it switches when it crosses the rounding point
17:34:37 <antonp> ??: really, we're animating through a bunch of keywords
17:34:47 <glazou> s/??/sylvaing
17:35:12 <antonp> objections to : round to nearest multiple of 100?
17:35:13 <antonp> no
17:35:17 <antonp> RESOLVED: round to nearest multiple of 100
17:35:32 <antonp> dbaron: Next: rules for transitioning visibility
17:35:39 <antonp> ... spec says it can be interpolated
17:35:51 <antonp> ... but what do we do about 'collapse'
17:36:01 <antonp> one possibility: not allowed
17:36:16 <antonp> dbaron: I don't have any other proposals
17:36:29 <antonp> ... what's in Gecko probably isn't what's wanted
17:36:45 <antonp> smfr: rules were set up so that we could make something appear and change its appearance in the same transition
17:37:15 <antonp> ...  if we were to do something similar for collapse, we should look at the pairs of values
17:37:32 <antonp> dbaron: one way: make collaps/visible work like hidden'/visisble
17:37:46 <antonp> dbaron: but say that collapse/hidden doesn't interpolate
17:38:04 <antonp> smfr: webkit doesn't implement hidden-to-collapse
17:38:22 <antonp> dbaron: table-row: at some point you'd switch at some point (indeed like all these rules)
17:38:24 <sylvaing> not sure I understand what happens when going from collapse to visible
17:39:09 <antonp> dbaron: summary: proposal right now is: interpolating between hidden/visible or collapse/visible then all of the intermediate points act as visible
17:39:14 <antonp> glazou: the transition is immediate?
17:39:36 <antonp> dbaron: the transition is immediate at some point, the question is whether it happens at the beginning or the end
17:39:58 <antonp> sylvaing: what's the use case for [????]
17:40:21 <glazou> s/???/going from collapse to visible
17:40:26 <antonp> dbaron: new option: collapse/hidden transition behaves as hidden, rather than interpolate.  I don't really care, and doubt anyone will notice
17:40:30 <Bert> (I like david's proposal.)
17:40:30 <smfr> no
17:40:32 <antonp> glazou: any objection?
17:40:53 <antonp> RESOLVED: accept david's proposal:
17:41:24 <bradk> 'collapse' and 'hidden' appear to have identical results in webkit.
17:41:25 <Zakim> + +8521616aaii
17:41:27 <dbaron> collapse/hidden isn't interpolable; visible/hidden and visible/collapse interpolate so the intermediate states are all visible
17:41:43 <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Dec/0311.html
17:41:52 <antonp> dbaron: last issue: pseudo-elements
17:42:09 <antonp> .. transition events fire, what should happen when a transition ends on a pseudo-element?
17:42:18 <antonp> ... one possiblity: fire an event at the element
17:42:27 <antonp> ... another possibility: no event at all
17:42:39 <antonp> ... another: add a field to the transition event saying which pseudo it's for
17:42:44 <antonp> ... maybe there are more?
17:42:56 <antonp> glazou: want consistency with getComputedStyle
17:43:10 <antonp> ... first element is the event, second is the pseudo
17:43:21 <antonp> dbaron: compat issues?  maybe not many people use pseudos
17:43:36 <antonp> florianr: the new field doesn't bother anyone not looking at them
17:43:48 <antonp> glazou: few people are transitioning on pseudos
17:43:56 <antonp> dbaron: gecko doesn't fire the events
17:44:02 <antonp> glazou: safe change then?
17:44:17 <antonp> dbaron: people happy with adding a field to the event saying which pseudo it's for
17:44:28 <antonp> florianr: provided no evidence that it breaks something
17:44:43 <antonp> RESOLVED: add a field to the event saying which pseudo-element it's for
17:44:58 <antonp> glazou: four issues remaining in dbaron's list, but need wider discussion
17:45:21 <antonp> dbaron: let's not discuss now, more productive for editors to figure out how to get proposals for them first
17:46:00 <antonp> Topic: css3-images issues needing WG review
17:46:03 <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Mar/0006.html
17:46:10 <fantasai> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/issues-lc-2012
17:46:45 <antonp> fantasai: issue number 2
17:47:15 <antonp> ... syntax issue
17:47:35 <antonp> ... 2 options: keep syntax, give consideration to the mailing list comment, reply with rationale
17:47:58 <fantasai> other option is to revert to old syntax
17:48:24 <antonp> florianr: we've changed gradients too much
17:48:25 <Zakim> -kojiishi
17:48:41 <antonp> .. can't tell if a revert makes things less changed or more changed!!
17:48:57 <antonp> sylvaing: I don't want to change anything again about gradients
17:49:14 <antonp> glazou: seems we don't want to change
17:49:33 <antonp> fantasai: should evaluate what gradient generators are outputting
17:49:40 <antonp> glazou: it won't change our decision
17:49:48 <antonp> fantasai: it makes a difference on the compat issue
17:49:58 <antonp> florianr: i don't want to reopen the topic but i agree
17:50:13 <antonp> florianr: we need to know what grandients generators produce
17:50:19 <antonp> ChrisL: the issue is browser support
17:50:33 <antonp> florianr: Op and Moz support both syntaxes
17:50:58 <antonp> glazou: it's not a large issue; online generators have updated their code various times in past, they'll do it again cos it's a cool feature
17:51:03 <bradk> http://www.colorzilla.com/gradient-editor/
17:51:04 <antonp> .. it's not that hard
17:51:13 <antonp> fantasai: should be support both options?
17:51:19 <antonp> ... that's what Moz is doing
17:51:23 <antonp> florianr: Opera does the same
17:52:39 <antonp> szilles: given that we aren't running unprefixed, i don't see the need to support both options
17:52:51 <antonp> florianr: authors are already using unprefixed, but it doesn't kick in anywhere
17:53:04 <antonp> szilles: how can they use unprefixed if syntax is unknown
17:53:10 <antonp> florianr: you know what the answer is ;-)
17:53:17 <antonp> szilles: they're breaking the system
17:53:27 <antonp> Bert: if they use it, it's their risk not ours
17:53:44 <antonp> florianr: i'm not interested in dropping support for the first(??) syntax
17:54:03 <antonp> florianr: why should both syntaxes exists?
17:54:14 <florianr> s/first(??)/to/
17:54:18 <antonp> ??: when are we going to stop tweaking this syntax
17:54:40 <antonp> .. stop this madness! we don't need to keep changing this
17:54:51 <antonp> Bert: people out there don't think it's good enough
17:55:04 <antonp> ??: got to stop sometime and let it be
17:55:10 <glazou> s/??/sylvaing
17:56:18 <antonp> proposal: keep the 'to' syntax, and only that syntax, because this has been tweaked too much. It's a reasonable compromise and changing it is not OK any more
17:56:18 <SteveZ> +1 for Florian's statement
17:56:32 <antonp> RESOLVED: keep the 'to' syntax, and only that syntax, because this has been tweaked too much. It's a reasonable compromise and changing it is not OK any more
17:56:45 <antonp> glazou: 3 mins left, let's keep remaining issues for next time
17:56:56 <antonp> ... many people away next week for SXSW
17:57:11 <SteveZ> steve sends regrets for next week
17:57:14 <antonp> ... should we have call next week?
17:57:17 <antonp> ... probably not
17:57:39 <antonp> .. OK. Next week's call is cancelled
17:57:51 <antonp> ... Is there anything needed for Fragment identifiers in URLs?
17:58:25 <antonp> sylvaing: there are issues against gradients, and issues against other at risk things.  Can we move forward somehow?
17:58:51 <antonp> (above comment was in relation to a different topic, which i missed)
17:58:52 <hober> thursday at the same time is the html call
17:58:59 <antonp> fantasai: can we move telecon to Thursday?
17:59:14 <antonp> sylvaing: how can we get Gradients to CR?  When?
17:59:27 <Zakim> -hober
17:59:40 <antonp> fantasai: features in document are mostly 'element' and 'object-fit'.
18:00:00 <antonp> fantasai: to get Gradients to CR, we should drop 'element'
18:00:26 <antonp> fantasai: need lots of reviewers to review the recent changes and current discussions
18:00:41 <antonp> sylvaing: if we want it to get to CR in the next week or 2, move 'element' to CR
18:00:47 <antonp> fantasai: it's currently at risk anyway
18:01:06 <antonp> glazou: should we move element to level 4?
18:01:14 <antonp> dbaron: I'd prefer not to
18:01:21 <antonp> Bert: what's the use case for 'element'?
18:01:26 <smfr> none in webkit
18:01:28 <antonp> sylvaing: do we have use cases
18:01:45 <antonp> ...: if we don't have 2 implementations...
18:01:53 <antonp> glazou: do others plan to implement this?
18:02:04 <antonp> ??: not in coming weeks
18:02:13 <antonp> florianr: it's a nice feature but not high priority
18:02:19 <antonp> smfr: same for webkit
18:02:30 <antonp> glazou: seems that it won't be implemented level 3
18:02:39 <antonp> sylvaing: so we only have 1 implementation
18:02:48 <antonp> dbaron: but various other things only have 1 implementation
18:02:54 <antonp> fantasai: yes, but they don't have issues
18:03:15 <antonp> sylvaing: do we hold up gradients for this?
18:03:26 <antonp> glazou: it'll be harder and harder to move on if we get held up on this
18:03:38 <antonp> szilles: why is it important to get 'element' in level 3 and not 4?
18:04:09 <antonp> dbaron: consensus on this concept, been around for a while.  I don't want the group to only ship features that there are already dependencies on
18:04:21 <antonp> glazou: web authors are using it a lot, that's the essential reason
18:04:40 <antonp> sylvaing: well, a year ago but that was before big changes
18:05:08 <antonp> glazou: we discussed extracting things from specs to increase REC speed, but now we're doing the opposite
18:05:32 <antonp> dbaron: I think we should also drop obejct-fit and object-position then
18:05:44 <antonp> .. we shoould drop everything with issues
18:05:46 <smfr> we should just have css3-gradients
18:05:56 <antonp> florianr: if it takes more than 1 telecon to resolve, then drop it?
18:06:14 <antonp> szilles: what's the likelihood of implementations? Judging this on issues is not the right way
18:06:26 <antonp> smfr: split out spec
18:06:40 <antonp> glazou: don't want to enter border-radius hell. We need to move fast
18:06:45 <ChrisL> +1 to css3-gradients spec
18:06:52 <antonp> ... that property stayed on the radar for ever before we moved on
18:07:07 <antonp> fantasai: bunch of issues in gradients that don't even have proposal
18:07:12 <sylvaing> ChrisL as long as having a new document doesn't create another n weeks of LC period etc
18:07:20 <antonp> ... one issue on object-fit, wont' require much discussion
18:07:45 <antonp> ... just check with smfr about whether the wording is good for EXIF data
18:07:47 <sylvaing> i.e. ok with a rename. I don't want to go through another month of process if we can just as easily move things to level 4 and publish what we have
18:07:51 <dbaron> I agree we should just have css3-gradients.
18:07:55 <antonp> ... just need WG to review
18:08:11 <antonp> glazou: proposal: just have css3-gradients
18:08:19 <antonp> fantasai: don't want to drop /everything/ that has issues
18:08:29 <antonp> dbaron: will have to drop them anyway to enter PR
18:08:35 <antonp> glazou: I want PR asap
18:08:37 <Zakim> -ChrisL
18:08:43 <antonp> florianr: move ?? out and leave the rest
18:08:50 <antonp> sylvaing: don't want new LC period
18:09:06 <antonp> fantasai: that proposal doesn't save anybody any time
18:09:13 <Bert> (People have been asking for images slices for longer than they have been asking for gradients...)
18:09:25 <glenn> notes we are out of time...
18:09:28 <antonp> szilles: if you've got the imps and reports, you can go from PR to LC
18:09:43 <antonp> fantasai: can't drop everything with issues
18:09:52 <fantasai> s/with/without/
18:09:55 <antonp> glazou: we must stop the call now
18:10:08 <antonp> ... resolve on the mailing list
18:10:11 <sylvaing> My bad for taking the call over...
18:10:14 <Zakim> -glenn
18:10:16 <antonp> ... next week is cancelled!
18:10:16 <Zakim> -smfr
18:10:18 <Zakim> -szilles
18:10:18 <Zakim> -[Microsoft.a]
18:10:19 <Zakim> -glazou
18:10:20 <Zakim> -bradk
18:10:20 <Zakim> -dbaron
18:10:20 <Zakim> -florianr
18:10:21 <Zakim> -??P7
18:10:23 <Zakim> -sylvaing
18:10:25 <Zakim> -nimbu
18:10:27 <Zakim> -Bert
18:10:29 <Zakim> - +8521616aaii
18:10:31 <Zakim> -katie.a
18:10:33 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
18:10:37 <fantasai> glazou, dbaron: Next time... please call me if I'm not on the call and I should be!
18:10:45 <fantasai> :(
18:10:57 <antonp> anything I have to do to end the meeting on here?
18:11:16 <glazou> antonp: now you understand why minuting is hard ? :-)
18:11:20 <antonp> haha
18:11:22 <glazou> antonp: ask fantasai 
18:12:07 <krit> krit has joined #css
18:12:24 <Ms2ger> RRSAgent, please publish the minutes
18:12:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/03/07-css-minutes.html Ms2ger
18:12:37 <fantasai> glazou: Would it be possible to replace the cancelled telecon with 3 resolutions by email?
18:13:20 <Bert> Yes, resolution by e-mail is possible. It's the chairs' responsibility to declare consensus.
18:13:58 <Bert> Whether they feel comfortable declaring consensus after just a few days of e-mail is another matter...
18:14:00 <fantasai> glazou: Dropping element(), approving issue 24 edits and/or dropping object-fit/position (btw, SVG wants those to map their preserveAspectRatio attribute), and go to CR.
18:14:24 <fantasai> glazou: I can summarize those for the mailing list.
18:14:35 <glazou> cool
18:14:36 <glazou> do it
18:14:38 <fantasai> Bert: probably a week would be enough?
18:14:43 <Ms2ger> Zakim, list attendees
18:14:43 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been glazou, +1.206.324.aaaa, sylvaing, +1.408.536.aabb, +93550aacc, antonp, szilles, +1.619.846.aadd, hober, Bert, JohnJansen, +1.415.832.aaee,
18:14:46 <Zakim> ... glenn, +1.206.552.aaff, dbaron, florianr, krit, nimbu, [Microsoft], arronei_, ChrisL, kojiishi, +1.408.636.aagg, smfr, +1.650.766.aahh, bradk, +8521616aaii
18:14:54 <fantasai> Bert: esp. if we replace the ocnf call announcement with a "You must spend the next hour reading and deciding on this" :)
18:14:56 <glazou> fantasai: ok for email resolutions
18:14:59 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #css
18:15:00 <glazou> I'll monitor that
18:15:11 <fantasai> Ok
18:15:15 <Ms2ger> Zakim, please excuse us
18:15:15 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees were glazou, +1.206.324.aaaa, sylvaing, +1.408.536.aabb, +93550aacc, antonp, szilles, +1.619.846.aadd, hober, Bert, JohnJansen,
18:15:15 <Zakim> Zakim has left #css
18:15:18 <Zakim> ... +1.415.832.aaee, glenn, +1.206.552.aaff, dbaron, florianr, krit, nimbu, [Microsoft], arronei_, ChrisL, kojiishi, +1.408.636.aagg, smfr, +1.650.766.aahh, bradk, +8521616aaii
18:15:19 <Bert> As long as enough people chime in...
18:15:26 <glazou> sure
18:15:32 <fantasai> Bert: yes, let's get explicit yay/nay responses
18:15:34 <glazou> we still need a minimal quorum
18:15:49 <Bert> Especially those who are travelling, because otherwise we don't know if they even read the question.
18:16:05 <fantasai> glazou: will send you email
18:16:08 <glazou> ok
18:16:56 <nimbu> nimbu has left #css
18:18:11 <oyvind> oyvind has left #css
18:29:14 <jet> jet has joined #CSS
18:37:07 <fantasai> TabAtkins: Your DoC responses suck. How am I supposed to work with this? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Feb/0270.html
18:37:32 <fantasai> TabAtkins: Can't expect the commenter to review your changes if you don't state what they are...
18:37:35 <fantasai> :/
18:37:37 <fantasai> :/
18:38:54 <smfr> smfr has left #css
18:42:18 <antonp> antonp has left #css
18:43:57 <Ms2ger> :/
19:00:18 <shans_> shans_ has joined #css
19:00:29 <arno> arno has joined #css
19:02:49 <glenn> glenn has joined #css
19:36:13 <arronei> arronei has joined #css
19:56:05 <glenn> glenn has joined #css
20:49:35 <jet> jet has joined #CSS