IRC log of css on 2012-03-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:14:55 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #css
16:14:55 [RRSAgent]
logging to
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, 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]
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]
17:00:37 [Zakim]
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]
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]
17:01:33 [Zakim]
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]
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]
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]
17:07:42 [antonp]
??: 2 related issues :
17:07:51 [glazou]
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]
17:08:47 [Zakim]
17:08:58 [Zakim]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
17:24:15 [antonp]
florianr: i've sent an imp report to www-style
17:24:16 [dbaron]
changes list is
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
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]
17:25:30 [glazou]
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]
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]
17:27:25 [florianr]
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]
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]
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]
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]
17:35:12 [antonp]
objections to : round to nearest multiple of 100?
17:35:13 [antonp]
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]
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]
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]
17:46:10 [fantasai]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
18:10:16 [antonp]
... next week is cancelled!
18:10:16 [Zakim]
18:10:18 [Zakim]
18:10:18 [Zakim]
18:10:19 [Zakim]
18:10:20 [Zakim]
18:10:20 [Zakim]
18:10:20 [Zakim]
18:10:21 [Zakim]
18:10:23 [Zakim]
18:10:25 [Zakim]
18:10:27 [Zakim]
18:10:29 [Zakim]
- +8521616aaii
18:10:31 [Zakim]
18:10:33 [Zakim]
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]
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 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]
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]
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]
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]
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?
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