15:20:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #css
15:20:31 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/03/21-css-irc
15:20:35 <glazou> Zakim, this will Style
15:20:35 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will Style', glazou
15:20:41 <glazou> Zakim, this will be Style
15:20:41 <Zakim> ok, glazou; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 40 minutes
15:20:48 <glazou> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:54:13 <Zakim> Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
15:54:19 <Zakim> +??P0
15:54:24 <dstorey_> dstorey_ has joined #css
15:54:33 <glenn> zakim, ??p0 is me
15:54:33 <Zakim> +glenn; got it
15:55:08 <tantek> tantek has joined #css
15:55:17 <Zakim> +sylvaing
15:55:59 <Zakim> +??P12
15:56:06 <glazou> Zakim, ??P12 is me
15:56:07 <Zakim> +glazou; got it
15:56:29 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:56:42 <florianr> Zakim, I am [IPcaller]
15:56:42 <Zakim> ok, florianr, I now associate you with [IPcaller]
15:56:45 <Zakim> +Molly_Holzschlag
15:57:37 <dstorey> dstorey has joined #css
15:57:41 <antonp> antonp has joined #css
15:57:55 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #css
15:58:05 <Zakim> -glenn
15:58:35 <Zakim> +??P0
15:58:41 <glenn> zakim, ??p0 is me
15:58:49 <Zakim> +glenn; got it
15:58:51 <glenn> zakim, mute me
15:58:58 <Zakim> glenn should now be muted
15:59:20 <smfr> smfr has joined #css
15:59:29 <Zakim> +??P31
15:59:42 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
16:00:07 <Zakim> + +1.415.766.aaaa
16:00:12 <dbaron> Zakim, aaaa is dbaron
16:00:12 <Zakim> +dbaron; got it
16:00:22 <Zakim> + +1.206.550.aabb
16:00:26 <Zakim> +hober
16:00:31 <stearns> zakim, aabb is me
16:00:31 <Zakim> +stearns; got it
16:00:41 <Zakim> +smfr
16:00:50 <JohnJansen> JohnJansen has joined #css
16:01:00 <JohnJansen> Zakim, Microsoft has JohnJansen
16:01:00 <Zakim> +JohnJansen; got it
16:01:37 <bradk> bradk has joined #css
16:01:57 <oyvind> oyvind has joined #css
16:02:09 <Zakim> + +1.408.421.aacc
16:02:41 <dstorey> zakim, +1.408.421.aacc is dstorey
16:02:48 <Zakim> + +8521616aadd
16:02:53 <antonp> having trouble dialing in....
16:03:11 <antonp> I'm in!
16:03:19 <krit> krit has joined #css
16:03:21 <Zakim> +dstorey; got it
16:03:27 <Zakim> + +1.415.832.aaee
16:03:40 <krit> Zakim, aaee is me
16:03:53 <Zakim> +antonp
16:03:57 <krit> Zakim, +1.415.832.aaee is me
16:04:34 <Zakim> +krit; got it
16:04:46 <Zakim> sorry, krit, I do not recognize a party named '+1.415.832.aaee'
16:05:15 <fantasai> Zakim, aadd is me
16:05:15 <Zakim> +fantasai; got it
16:05:20 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
16:06:47 <glazou> ScribeNick: mollydotcom 
16:06:51 <sylvaing> extra agenda item from overtime 2 weeks ago: whether to move gradients to css3-gradients
16:06:54 <Rossen> Rossen has joined #css
16:07:11 <Zakim> +bradk
16:07:17 <mollydotcom> Daniel: Asking for comments about proposal
16:07:34 <dbaron> Dirk: propose publishing new draft of css3-transforms
16:07:41 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.aa]
16:07:42 <mollydotcom> Simon: clarifying language
16:07:45 <Zakim> -hober
16:07:50 <mollydotcom> Daniel: Objections? Comments?
16:07:52 <glazou> smfr: remove green section
16:08:18 <mollydotcom> Resolution: New Working Draft for Transforms
16:08:31 <mollydotcom> Daniel: Next up Sylvain and Gradients
16:08:46 <dbaron> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:08:46 <Zakim> On the phone I see sylvaing, glazou, [IPcaller], Molly_Holzschlag, glenn (muted), ??P31, [Microsoft], dbaron, stearns, smfr, dstorey, fantasai, krit, antonp, [Microsoft.a], bradk,
16:08:49 <Zakim> ... [Microsoft.aa]
16:08:49 <Zakim> [Microsoft] has JohnJansen
16:08:56 <ChrisL> ChrisL has joined #css
16:08:56 <Rossen> Zakim, [Microsoft] has me
16:08:56 <Zakim> +Rossen; got it
16:09:16 <mollydotcom> Daniel: conversation regarding Elika's concerns re Flexbox, Variables and Grid Layout
16:09:32 <mollydotcom> Sylvain: Open issues on all the features in the spec
16:09:45 <Zakim> +ChrisL
16:09:47 <glazou> s/spec/gradients
16:09:53 <mollydotcom> Sylvain: Only one implementation, so maybe we want to take gradients into their own draft
16:10:08 <Zakim> +[Apple]
16:10:17 <mollydotcom> Sylvain: We should make a decision on this
16:10:29 <hober> Zakim, Apple has hober
16:10:30 <Zakim> +Bert
16:10:30 <Zakim> +hober; got it
16:10:57 <mollydotcom> Florian: CR itself doesn't have to be rushed
16:11:23 <mollydotcom> Sylvain: I think that the feature has been around long enough, we're sitting on our hands waiting
16:12:14 <mollydotcom> Florian: Discussion of CR v. PR and where resolutions should go
16:12:41 <mollydotcom> Sylvain: In violent agreement, but I want to get it to CR as soon as we can
16:12:46 <Zakim> +SteveZ
16:12:57 <mollydotcom> Fantasai: Can we focus on resolving issues?
16:13:16 <dbaron> um, that makes what order we discuss the issues in a pretty big factor
16:13:17 <mollydotcom> Daniel: Moving to issues right now
16:13:29 <ChrisL> link to issues list?
16:14:06 <florianr> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css3-images
16:14:22 <mollydotcom> Link to issues list: http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css3-images
16:15:14 <mollydotcom> Elika: Directional images - design issues we can't address correctly that quickly, defer?
16:15:21 <mollydotcom> Daniel: No Objections
16:15:30 <mollydotcom> RESOLVED: defer directional images
16:16:14 <mollydotcom> Elika: Object-fit / Changing size of content box
16:16:35 <Zakim> + +47.21.65.aaff
16:17:55 <glazou> mollydotcom: are you correctly minuting this?
16:18:22 <mollydotcom> no
16:18:30 <mollydotcom> Florian: please summarize
16:18:51 <fantasai> ScribeNick: fantasai
16:19:35 <mollydotcom> Florian: Two concerns. 1st case seems useful, but not always the desired behavior
16:19:37 <fantasai> Florian: We have two concerns about the effect. First, the use case that's described for it seems useful, but I'm not convinced that's always the behavior you want. Might want to turn it on or off.
16:21:14 <fantasai> Florian: Second case is if you have max-width to 100px and width is less that, it will enlarge the image up to 100px
16:21:32 <mollydotcom> Florian: Second case is if you have max-width to 100px and width is less that, it will enlarge the image up to 100px
16:21:40 <fantasai> Florian: Among the ppl who understand this text, am I wrong to think that it says that?
16:21:51 <mollydotcom> Florian: Am I wrong to think that the text says that?
16:22:14 <fantasai> dbaron: It does say that you enlarge images in a bunch of cases, but I think... you're talking about wanting a constraint that shrinks/enlarges only if necessary?
16:22:25 <mollydotcom> dbaron: It does say that you enlarge images in a bunch of cases, but I think... you're talking about wanting a constraint that shrinks/enlarges only if necessary?
16:22:29 <fantasai> Florian: max-width + object-fit: contain causes your image to grow.
16:22:41 <fantasai> Florian: It might be useful, but certainly counter-intuitive
16:22:45 <mollydotcom> Florian: max-width and object: fit: contain doesn't seem useful, counter-intuitive
16:23:18 <fantasai> Florian: So my conclusion based on that, I think we should split that behavior out of object-fit so that you have that behavior but it's not confused with object-fit contain and cover
16:23:27 <fantasai> Molly: Sounds like a language problem
16:23:31 <mollydotcom> Molly: Sounds like a language problem to me
16:23:36 <mollydotcom> Florian: So my conclusion based on that, I think we should split that behavior out of object-fit so that you have that behavior but it's not confused with object-fit contain and cover
16:23:46 <mollydotcom> Elika: Add a keyword that determines the behavior
16:24:02 <mollydotcom> Elika: to control resizing the box (in level four)
16:24:14 <fantasai> fantasai: Drop the paragraph, add a keyword in level 4
16:24:28 <mollydotcom> Florian: Drop the paragraph, add a keyword in level 4
16:24:28 <fantasai> dbaron: I think it's good to drop this to L4
16:24:39 <fantasai> dbaron: I have comments on the feature for L4, not spend time on that right now.
16:24:43 <Rossen> +1 for moving it to level 4
16:24:57 <sylvaing> not clear on what the resolution is....
16:25:01 <fantasai> sfmr: We have a scale-down keyword...
16:25:09 <mollydotcom> Elika: Do we have a resolution on dropping the text?
16:25:35 <tantek> scribe, I am on IRC only this morning for today's meeting
16:25:49 <fantasai> Florian: The first paragraph of contain and cover is dropped, use cases it solves moved to L4
16:25:50 <mollydotcom> Florian, the paragraph goes away, add a keyword in level 4
16:25:57 <mollydotcom> Daniel: No objection?
16:25:58 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Dropped
16:26:12 <mollydotcom> RESOLVED: Paragraph Dropped 
16:27:00 <fantasai> fantasai summarizes issue about image-fit/image-position aliases of object-fit/object-position
16:27:12 <fantasai> which were allowed for printers
16:27:36 <fantasai> Florian: I think it's useful to specify such things so that new UAs can be backwards-compatible
16:27:53 <fantasai> Florian: But also at the F2F we discussed what an alias means, and we don't have a definition.
16:28:05 <fantasai> Florian: If we allow an alias, we should define it, and discussing that might take awhile.
16:28:26 <fantasai> Florian: This is not the spec to spend this time.
16:28:59 <dbaron> fantasai: How about we shift this to the print profile
16:29:11 <dbaron> fantasai: It's printer specific -- not a backwards-compat issue on the Web
16:29:27 <fantasai> dbaron: I'd also prefer not having aliases here.
16:29:55 <fantasai> dbaron: I would prefer C to B, but I don't think we need to make that decision right now.
16:30:05 <fantasai> Florian: We can drop it from Print Profile later if it's problematic
16:30:16 <fantasai> glazou: Can you live with B?
16:30:19 <fantasai> dbaron: I suppose so.
16:30:24 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Shift to Print Profile
16:31:59 <fantasai> fantasai summarizes issue 14
16:32:22 <fantasai> Florian: Don't know enough about the topic. Sounds reasonable to me.
16:32:25 <Zakim> -krit
16:32:32 <fantasai> dbaron: Sounds reasonable to me, should probably run it by the Media Fragments group
16:32:42 <fantasai> ChrisL: We could; should I take an action to do that?
16:33:29 <mollydotcom> Florian: Is there another solution?
16:33:47 <mollydotcom> dbaron: Has anyone read the media fragments enough to understand?
16:34:04 <fantasai> http://www.w3.org/TR/media-frags/#error-uri
16:34:11 <mollydotcom> dbaron: If there isn't any behavior there I don't see any need to run it by the group
16:34:49 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Edits approved for issue 14
16:34:53 <florianr> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css3-images
16:34:55 <mollydotcom> :)
16:34:57 <florianr> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css3-images#image-and-invalid-fragments
16:35:04 <dbaron> "If a URL uses a fragment identifier syntax that the implementation does not understand, or which the implementation does not consider valid for that type of image, the URL must be treated as representing an invalid image. This error-handling is limited to image(), and not in the definition of URL, for legacy compat reasons."
16:35:20 <mollydotcom> Fantasai: Image orientation overview
16:36:09 <fantasai> fantasai summarizes issue 42
16:36:27 <mollydotcom> RESOLVED: Is inheritable
16:37:04 <mollydotcom> Fantasai: Elements, lot of issues here - 2 options: Resolve all issues; or move to Level 4
16:37:22 <mollydotcom> Fantasai: Tab removed element references - if anyone has any objection to that, please speak up
16:38:09 <Zakim> -??P31
16:38:28 <mollydotcom> Hakon: It seems that this other issue with the elements - I would agree this doesn't sound highly intuitive
16:38:32 <Zakim> +??P14
16:38:40 <Zakim> - +47.21.65.aaff
16:38:44 <Zakim> -SteveZ
16:39:03 <fantasai> Florian: I think I actually prefer proposal B, which is to defer element() to CSS4. I am not convinced we can go through all that in a short amount of time.
16:39:09 <mollydotcom> Florian: Before we get into all issues, I think we might consider moving to Level 4 - I am not convinced
16:39:13 <mollydotcom> we have enough time
16:39:15 <fantasai> Florian: Wrt short, I mean a number of telecons we can agree to right now
16:39:17 <Zakim> + +47.21.65.aagg
16:39:33 <fantasai> glazou: Still discussing the intimacy(?) of this feature; probably means it's not stable enough in everyone's mind.
16:39:40 <dbaron> Zakim, aagg is howcome
16:39:40 <Zakim> +howcome; got it
16:39:47 <fantasai> Florian: We're discussing whether we need to discuss what you (howcome) said
16:40:04 <fantasai> dbaron: I think a bunch of these issues aren't all that hard.
16:40:11 <fantasai> dbaron: we've put them to the end of the list
16:40:26 <fantasai> Florian: If we can handle by end of next telecon or 3, fine. But not unbounded number of telecons.
16:40:45 <fantasai> glazou: let's not spend time on meta-discussion
16:41:12 <fantasai> dbaron: So I don't think the GCPM and Images conflict. One defines... well, ok, yeah.
16:41:24 <fantasai> dbaron: nevermind
16:42:11 <fantasai> dbaron: I think the element name makes more sense in almost all the contexts its used. The one exception is 'content', which takes images and a bunch of other things.
16:42:34 <fantasai> dbaron: Could say that element() only works inside image() for 'content', but everywhere else ok on it's own.
16:42:41 <fantasai> fantasai: that seems weird
16:42:57 <stearns> the number of reviews being solicited suggests to me that more issues will crop up, which pushes me towards deferral
16:43:14 <krit> krit has joined #css
16:44:06 <fantasai> fantasai: So.. options include defining away the conflict in 'content' somehow, dbaron's proposal, renaming one or the other, or maybe merging the element() functionality into image() somehow.
16:44:31 <fantasai> Florian: should we move to other issues?
16:45:22 <glazou> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#decorated-bounding-box
16:45:26 <fantasai> fantasai: Issue was bounding box is undefined. So we added a definition, and used the border image area as the basis of that definition
16:46:05 <fantasai> fantasai: So the question is, does the WG approve of this.
16:46:17 <fantasai> fantasai: we chose the border image area rather than the border box so that border images wouldn't get clipped if they were outset
16:46:41 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
16:46:43 <fantasai> Florian: Sounds ok to me, but far from sure I have my head around all the implications.
16:46:50 <fantasai> dbaron: I want to run this by roc
16:47:04 <dbaron> dbaron: possible that it should be a little more related to 'overflow'
16:47:58 <krit> krit has left #css
16:48:30 <fantasai> fantasai: This parallels the SVG concept of "decorated bounding box", which includes not just the geometry of the of the svg element, but also the half of the stroke that sits outside it.
16:48:46 <fantasai> bradk: Should this include outline?
16:48:51 <ChrisL> outline takes no space (or at least does not cause reflow)
16:49:01 <fantasai> bradk: Wouldn't want outline to clip
16:49:11 <fantasai> fantasai: That would make the behavior undefined, since outline position is not defined.
16:49:24 <fantasai> Rossen: outline doesn't include scrolling extents, so why include it here
16:49:43 <fantasai> smfr: Then you get into issues of should it include box-shadow, filter effects that cause spilling, etc.
16:50:04 <fantasai> Rossen: Seems odd to me to take into account outines for bounding boxes
16:50:41 <fantasai> dbaron: What is this used for?
16:50:50 <fantasai> fantasai: calculating the size of the element and its clipping bounds
16:50:59 <fantasai> s/element/image/
16:51:31 <dbaron> Brad: I don't see how 'outline' is different from 'border-image'
16:51:42 <dbaron> Florian: I'm sure I don't want outlines in there
16:52:15 <glenn> pixels from rasterizing glyphs also (may and often do) fall outside their bounding box; would another term be needed for this?
16:52:56 <fantasai> dbaron: What does Gecko do?
16:52:58 <Zakim> +??P17
16:53:06 <Zakim> -howcome
16:53:08 <glenn> zakim, ??p17 is me
16:53:08 <Zakim> +glenn; got it
16:53:42 <fantasai> fantasai: Also a question of what's the right behavior here. In most cases border image area matches border area. Question is what's best to do in cases where they mismatch
16:53:49 <fantasai> No conclusion here, moving on.
16:54:17 <dbaron> fantasai: next issue is issue 27, Allow image() to accept element() so that authors can specify fallbacks
16:54:22 <dbaron> dbaron: sounds good to me
16:54:26 <dbaron> Florian: sounds ok
16:54:44 <fantasai> RESOLVED: accept changes for issue 27
16:55:06 <dbaron> fantasai: Next issue is issue 26, specifying handling of varying size pages
16:55:57 <dbaron> fantasai: propose align page content boxes by their start content edges before taking the bounding box.
16:56:49 <dbaron> dbaron: sounds reasonable to me
16:56:49 <fantasai> fantasai: Other possible options are center-alignment, or end-alignment, or left-alignment, or right-alignment
16:57:16 <dbaron> Glenn: so the border on a page is more like outline than border in the normal CSS box model?
16:57:32 <dbaron> fantasai: It's like border, but it's not part of the document formatting.
16:58:15 <fantasai> fantasai: it's more like decorating the window or chrome of the browser; doesn't play with document at all
16:58:53 <bradk> re: "In most cases border image area matches border area." Without border-image, wouldn't the image be clipped to the curves when there is border-radius? Would the corner behavior depend on if there was a non-initial value of border-image?
16:59:07 <fantasai> bradk, bounding box is always rectangular
16:59:56 <fantasai> RESOLVED: accept text for issue 26 pending alexmog and vincents' approval
17:00:19 <bradk> OK. Actually, if border box is used, it would still be rectangular, but with transparent areas outside the borde-radius corners. So, never mind.
17:00:36 <fantasai> Florian: I don't think we can solve all these issues. I'm fine if we can solve all the issue by next telecon. but not if it's an unbounded task
17:00:58 <fantasai> dbaron: I suppose so
17:01:13 <dbaron> I'd sort of like to hear Tab's opinion
17:01:15 <oyvind> I find it a bit hard to believe that these are the only issues...
17:01:17 <fantasai> sylvain +1 to Florian
17:01:29 <danielweck> danielweck has joined #css
17:01:50 <mollydotcom> "editor doesn't mean decider" - Glazou
17:03:16 <dbaron> dbaron: element() is NOT the only section of this spec that's been substantially rewritten since last call
17:03:44 <glenn> editor's propose, we members dispose
17:05:06 <fantasai> discussion of whether to push element() to L4
17:05:42 <fantasai>  - how much time is necessary to resolve issues and get necessary reviews
17:05:57 <fantasai>  - how unstable is the feature, how many more issues might show up
17:06:00 <fantasai>  - etc.
17:06:15 <danielweck> great...I misread the UTC/GMT concall time ... <idiot-emoticon>
17:06:24 <Zakim> -ChrisL
17:06:37 <fantasai> glazou: gradients is urgent. element() is not.
17:06:54 <ChrisL> @danielweck never mind its all back to normal next week
17:06:57 <dbaron> (argument between glazou and molly)
17:07:01 <fantasai> glazou: Given remaining issues and discussion today, I support deferring element.
17:07:16 <fantasai> Florian: how do we resolve on this?
17:07:19 <mollydotcom> I support deferring element.
17:07:22 <fantasai> Straw poll
17:07:23 <stearns> +1 to defer
17:07:24 <glazou> Zakim, who is on the phone ?
17:07:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see sylvaing, glazou, [IPcaller], Molly_Holzschlag, glenn (muted), dbaron, stearns, smfr, dstorey, fantasai, antonp, [Microsoft.a], bradk, [Microsoft.aa], [Apple],
17:07:26 <danielweck> ChrisL: okay thanks
17:07:28 <Zakim> ... Bert, ??P14, glenn.a
17:07:28 <Zakim> [Apple] has hober
17:07:36 <fantasai> Poll: defer or work on element(
17:07:38 <fantasai> sylvaing: defer
17:07:39 <glenn> defer
17:07:40 <fantasai> glazou: defer
17:07:42 <fantasai> Florian: defer
17:07:45 <fantasai> Molly: defer
17:07:52 <fantasai> glenn: defer
17:07:57 <arronei> arronei: defer
17:07:59 <fantasai> dbaron: work on it, but ok with deferring
17:08:04 <fantasai> alan: defer
17:08:06 <fantasai> smfr: defer
17:08:09 <fantasai> dstorey: defer
17:08:20 <bradk> I said defer
17:08:21 <fantasai> fantasai: I think I would prefer to defer
17:08:23 <fantasai> anton: defer
17:08:25 <fantasai> Rossen: defer
17:08:37 <fantasai> ?: defer
17:08:54 <fantasai> Bert: defer
17:08:55 <stearns> that's the most consistent straw-poll I've seen from this group yet
17:09:00 <hober> s/?/hober/
17:09:10 <fantasai> RESOLVED: element() deferred to L4
17:09:20 <sylvaing> so moving to CR?
17:09:38 <Rossen> Zakim, [Microsoft.a] is me
17:09:38 <Zakim> +Rossen; got it
17:09:49 <fantasai> dbaron: Substantial sections have been rewritten in last week.5, and should have time to review those before CR
17:09:52 <fantasai> +1
17:10:09 <fantasai> glazou: So let's make decision to move to CR at beginning of next concall
17:10:18 <fantasai> Florian: Is that long enough for you, dbaron?
17:10:20 <fantasai> dbaron: I'll see.
17:10:38 <fantasai> fantasai: Let's go for 1 week and see where we get to.
17:10:42 <Zakim> -smfr
17:10:45 <Zakim> -bradk
17:10:45 <Zakim> -glazou
17:10:46 <Zakim> -[Apple]
17:10:46 <Zakim> -antonp
17:10:46 <fantasai> Meeting closed.
17:10:47 <Zakim> -stearns
17:10:48 <Zakim> -[Microsoft.aa]
17:10:50 <Zakim> -sylvaing
17:10:51 <antonp> antonp has left #css
17:10:52 <Zakim> -dstorey
17:10:54 <Zakim> -dbaron
17:10:56 <Zakim> -Rossen
17:10:58 <Zakim> -Molly_Holzschlag
17:11:00 <Zakim> -Bert
17:11:02 <Zakim> -glenn.a
17:11:04 <Zakim> -??P14
17:11:11 <Zakim> -fantasai
17:11:21 <mollydotcom> mollydotcom has left #css
17:11:25 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
17:11:51 <tantek> good to see the sense of urgency to move things forward encouraging swifter consensus with what to wrap-up vs. what to defer.
17:13:40 <fantasai> florianr: straw polls are useful like that :) that's why we have them
17:14:06 <arronei> arronei has joined #css
17:16:25 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, glenn, in Style_CSS FP()12:00PM
17:16:26 <Zakim> Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
17:16:26 <Zakim> Attendees were glenn, sylvaing, glazou, [IPcaller], Molly_Holzschlag, +1.415.766.aaaa, dbaron, +1.206.550.aabb, hober, stearns, smfr, JohnJansen, +8521616aadd, dstorey,
17:16:26 <Zakim> ... +1.415.832.aaee, antonp, krit, fantasai, [Microsoft], bradk, Rossen, ChrisL, Bert, SteveZ, +47.21.65.aaff, +47.21.65.aagg, howcome
17:22:10 <oyvind> oyvind has left #css
17:25:02 <arronei> arronei has joined #css
17:36:06 <dstorey> dstorey has joined #css
17:55:09 <shepazu> dbaron: who would be a good person to talk to about Developer Relations at Mozilla?
17:55:35 <jet> jet has joined #CSS
17:55:36 <shepazu> Christian? Beard? Stormy?
17:56:53 <jet_> jet_ has joined #CSS
17:58:22 <dbaron> shepazu, Stormy
17:58:32 <shepazu> dbaron: ok, thanks
18:21:17 <glenn> glenn has joined #css
18:40:47 <fantasai> sylvaing: Can you poke Phil about linking the issues list from http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-grid-layout/?
18:50:56 <jet> jet has joined #CSS
18:52:43 <sylvaing> fantasai: will do
18:53:36 <jet_> jet_ has joined #CSS
18:54:09 <jet> jet has joined #CSS
19:07:32 <sylvaing> fantasai: he seems to have done so already; it points to https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=CSS&component=Grid+Layout&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED, which is legit
19:16:36 <Zakim> Zakim has left #css
19:21:17 <drublic> drublic has joined #css
19:41:39 <fantasai> sylvaing: yeah, I found the bugzilla list shortly afterward and edited it in...
19:42:29 <sylvaing> damn, you're good...
19:43:17 <fantasai> I have to be, right? Otherwise nothing would ever get published. :/
19:43:37 <Ms2ger> All too true
20:29:26 <leaverou> leaverou has joined #css
20:36:58 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #css
20:41:43 <sylvaing> fair point
20:42:07 <sylvaing> the day you move to france and pick up on strikes and 35-hour weeks, we are screwed
20:43:35 <fantasai> I'm still in the process of recalibrating to employee clocking.
20:43:58 <fantasai> Hard to do with so much travel, though. I always work more hours on work trips than I do when I'm home...
20:49:30 <sylvaing> well, i'm not just talking billable time. i mean, you don't bill the WG for all the stuff you do, right?
20:50:20 <fantasai> no, but I've billed HP, MS, Mozilla, and Antenna House for WG work...
20:52:12 <arno> arno has joined #css
20:52:29 <fantasai> billable hours doesn't include the time I spend being distracted
20:52:49 <fantasai> or otherwise unproductive
20:52:59 <fantasai> or handling overhead
20:53:07 <sylvaing> right
20:54:21 <TabAtkins_> My billable hours do.
20:54:30 <fantasai> TabAtkins_: you're an employee
20:54:32 <TabAtkins_> I consider it a good day when I get four hours of productive work done.
20:54:38 <Ms2ger> fantasai, so are you! :)
20:54:48 <TabAtkins_> Thought that obviously doesn't count time spent reading emails at home.
20:54:49 <fantasai> I am now! But I wasn't until last year. :)
20:55:16 <TabAtkins_> fantasai: I'm going to rewrite that paragraph you rewrote. ^_^ I hated that language originally, and was happy to replace it, but now you've brought back most of it!
20:55:20 <sylvaing> Tab, yes. Office time is not the whole story.
20:55:42 <fantasai> TabAtkins_: well don't regress things this time!
20:56:15 <TabAtkins_> I don't actually understand what I regressed.
20:56:46 <TabAtkins_> Oh, was there a <dfn> around those terms before?
20:57:03 <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Mar/0494.html
20:57:09 <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Mar/0496.html
20:57:41 <TabAtkins_> Yes, I'm looking at those emails.
20:57:46 <fantasai> ping me when you're done rewriting, so I can review it
20:57:50 <TabAtkins_> I just didn't understand what you said in them.
20:59:05 <fantasai> Ok, let me break it down for you.
20:59:16 <fantasai> "But you've lost all consideration of images with only a width
20:59:17 <fantasai> > or only a height"
20:59:23 <fantasai> Theses are the possible cases:
20:59:30 <fantasai> * has width + height + aspect ratio
20:59:32 <fantasai> * has width
20:59:36 <fantasai> * has height
20:59:39 <fantasai> * has aspect ratio
20:59:43 <fantasai> * has no intrinsic sizes
21:00:03 <fantasai> Your rewrite is clear about 1, 4, and 5. The old text is clear that all five exist
21:00:10 <fantasai> "you've dropped the mention of embedded documents,
21:00:11 <fantasai> > which is a useful example."
21:00:22 <fantasai> I don't understand how this point is unclear...
21:00:30 <fantasai> "This rewrite also drops the definitions of 'intrinsic width', 'intrinsic
21:00:30 <fantasai> height', and 'intrinsic aspect ratio'.
21:00:31 <fantasai> "
21:00:33 <fantasai> nor this part
21:00:41 <fantasai> I can paraphrase them for you if that would help?
21:01:40 <fantasai> First one is "The old text mentioned embedded documents as an example of an object without intrinsic dimensions. The new text does not have this example. It would be better to have this example, unless you have a good reason for deleting it."
21:01:46 <fantasai> Second one is
21:02:16 <fantasai> "The old text has definitions for 'intrinsic width', 'intrinsic height', and 'intrinsic aspect ratio
21:02:32 <fantasai> '. The new text does not have such definitions, leaving the various instances of these terms undefined."
21:02:39 <fantasai> Is it clear now?
21:02:58 <fantasai> If not, point out which bit is unclear, and I will try a differen paraphrase......
21:24:10 <TabAtkins_> You could have just said "you dropped the sentence explicitly talking about an image having only a width or height".
21:24:39 <TabAtkins_> And "you accidentally dropped the part of the markup that actually had <dfn>s around 'intrinsic width' etc."
21:24:54 <TabAtkins_> All fixed now in my rewrite, btw.
21:24:54 <fantasai> I don't care about that sentence. I care that the concept is clear
21:25:10 <fantasai> And the <dfn>s aren't the point; the old text actually had some semblance of a definition as well
21:25:26 <TabAtkins_> The preceding paragraph has a definition.
21:25:36 <fantasai> no, it defines "intrinsic"
21:25:36 <TabAtkins_> It's informal, because, well, the concept is kinda informal.
21:26:46 <fantasai> s/may/can/g;
21:26:51 <fantasai> this isn't an rfc2119 use
21:26:55 <TabAtkins_> Oh, whoops.
21:27:02 <fantasai> the object is not out-of-conformance if it fails to comply
21:27:06 <fantasai> it just can't
21:27:39 <fantasai> s/all raster/raster/ please
21:28:03 <TabAtkins_> Hm, why?
21:28:12 <fantasai> less words is better?
21:28:19 <TabAtkins_> Sounds reasonable.
21:28:53 <TabAtkins_> That sounds impossible on its face.
21:28:59 <TabAtkins_> Given the definition of "raster image".
21:29:50 <fantasai> pixellated graphics designed to be pixellated but scalable? :)
21:30:03 <TabAtkins_> That'd still be a vector format, no?
21:31:18 <TabAtkins_> Hm, probably.
21:31:25 <fantasai> I also don't see why it can't be normative like it was in the previous version
21:31:37 <fantasai> Like, seriously, you didn't have to revert *everything*
21:31:42 <fantasai> :)
21:32:14 <fantasai> I think what bothers me about your rewrite is that it's one very long sentence with parentheticals that in some cases are themselves long sentences
21:32:30 <TabAtkins_> Because I'm not making a normative statement, just giving a reminder that you can't have two.
21:32:49 <TabAtkins_> What bothered me about my old text was that it was just a pile of sentence fragments *and* still had long parentheticals.
21:32:55 <fantasai> hehehe
21:33:08 <TabAtkins_> Also: MY INBOX WON'T GO DOWN
21:33:12 <fantasai> ?
21:33:28 <fantasai> TabAtkins: statements of fact are allowed in the spec. They don't need to be marked in a Note
21:33:29 <TabAtkins_> I keep trying to clean my inbox in between talking with you and making edits, and when I return it's back up to where it was before.
21:33:34 <fantasai> lol
21:33:54 <arno> arno has joined #css
21:33:57 <TabAtkins_> fantasai: Sure, but I feel it can be mistaken here for attempting to ill-define something.
21:34:59 <fantasai> I don't see how adding "An object cannot have only two intrinsic dimensions, as any two automatically imply the third. For example, an image with a defined width and aspect ratio also has a defined height implied by the width and aspect ratio."
21:35:03 <fantasai> could be problematic
21:35:09 <TabAtkins_> Less words is better?
21:35:30 <fantasai> :)
21:35:32 <TabAtkins_> It's in our style guide!
21:36:16 <TabAtkins_> nuuuuuu!
21:36:51 <fantasai> The other thing that's a bit troublesome imo is that we start by describing objects with no intrinsic dimensions
21:36:56 <fantasai> and finishing by describing ones that have all three
21:37:03 <fantasai> whereas the reader is most likely to be familiar with the latter
21:37:07 <TabAtkins_> It felt better that way.
21:37:18 <TabAtkins_> But I can try reordering.
21:37:23 <fantasai> I know. It's because of the exact wording you used. >_<
21:38:35 <fantasai> Probably need to solve the excessively long parentheticals inside excessively long sentence along with the reordering.
21:38:55 <tantek> looks like another nice fantasai/TabAtkins back/forth. good times. pass the popcorn.
21:38:57 <fantasai> This is the trouble with wording... there's subtle things about it that get tangled when you do simple things like reordering
21:39:17 <tantek> +1
21:39:18 <TabAtkins_> Let me poke at it a bit.
21:39:26 <fantasai> kk
21:39:50 <TabAtkins_> Also: grr, I got in a stupid inconsistent state in Hg yesterday and had to reset the whole repo.
21:39:55 <TabAtkins_> stupid merge conflicts.
21:39:59 <fantasai> ummm
21:40:15 <fantasai> TabAtkins_: http://wiki.csswg.org/tools/hg ?
21:40:16 <TabAtkins_> Or rather, stupid documentation that doesn't explain how to solve merge conflicts during a rebase properly.
21:40:47 <fantasai> it suggests hg rebase --abort and then using hg merge
21:41:05 <fantasai> which seems fair if you have complicated merge conflicts...
21:42:16 <fantasai> "The more frequently you synchronize, the less likely you are to encounter merge issues. " ^_^
21:46:21 <Ms2ger> All I've figured out about rebase is that it tends to break stuff
21:46:31 <fantasai> heh
21:46:53 <Ms2ger> Removing random files, stuff like that
21:47:03 <fantasai> :/
21:48:03 <Ms2ger> But hey, maybe it handles repos that are smaller than mozilla-central better
21:48:20 <fantasai> that seems like an odd problem to have on scaling
21:48:26 <fantasai> http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/tools/mq
21:48:46 <fantasai> They day I sat down to learn Mercurial for mozilla-central, I wrote myself a perl script out of my notes.
21:49:29 <Ms2ger> Eww, perl ;)
21:56:28 <TabAtkins_> fantasai: It wasn't a complicated conflict at all.  The Overview.html had two lines in the header different.  AND EVERYTHING WENT RETARDED.
21:57:04 <fantasai> TabAtkins_: Did you figure out how to use hg resolve?
21:57:07 <TabAtkins_> I use rebase because that's how I learned to use git, to keep a prettier history.
21:57:24 <Ms2ger> MQ gives you a pretty history as well
21:57:27 <TabAtkins_> fantasai: I'm not sure.  Like I said, it all went pear-shaped, so I just blew away the repo and started over.
21:57:40 <fantasai> TabAtkins_: Yeah, if you have merge conflicts, you need to use hg rebase.
21:57:49 <fantasai> rebase or merge, doesn't matter
21:58:33 <Ms2ger> Yay docs!
21:58:35 <fantasai> TabAtkins_: http://wiki.csswg.org/tools/hg#resolving-conflictshg-resolve
21:58:39 <TabAtkins_> I eventually got to a state where I had no pending commits that it would tell me about, no pending *un*committed changes, and I was synced against latest head, but it still failed to rebase.
21:58:53 <fantasai> TabAtkins_: use MQ? :)
21:59:13 <fantasai> :) :)
21:59:18 <TabAtkins_> fantasai: Yeah, I did what that page describes, but I think I'd already screwed things up by then.
21:59:37 <TabAtkins_> Anyway, if I just don't screw around and use resolve properly, I think I'll be okay.
21:59:47 <fantasai> okay
22:06:38 <TabAtkins_> fantasai: In my rewrite of that paragraph, I realized that the whole point is just to present those examples, so I'm removing all the non-parenthetical text.
22:07:37 <stearns> and the parentheses, I hope
22:08:09 <TabAtkins_> You'd think so, yes.
22:53:53 <TabAtkins_> fantasai: Thoughts re: just dropping ltr/rtl for now?
23:24:12 <fantasai> TabAtkins_: Yes, shift it to CSS4
23:24:40 <fantasai> TabAtkins_: Also element() shifts to CSS4
23:24:53 <fantasai> TabAtkins_: So we probably want a coherent editor's draft of that
23:36:01 <TabAtkins_> Oh, was that decided during the call?
23:36:09 <TabAtkins_> fantasai: ^^^
23:36:37 <fantasai> TabAtkins_: yes
23:36:46 <fantasai> here, I'll dump you the minutes
23:36:54 <fantasai> I'm almost done...
23:37:01 <TabAtkins_> np
23:37:03 <TabAtkins_> I can wait.
23:37:10 <fantasai> too late...
23:37:11 <fantasai> :p
23:37:14 <fantasai> in your inbox
23:37:25 <fantasai> adding to your inbox 0 obstacles 
23:39:11 <fantasai> but the text is all there
23:39:20 <fantasai> and formatted
23:39:26 <TabAtkins_> Sweet.  I can make all these edits.
23:39:34 <TabAtkins_> AND THEN GO TO CR?!?
23:39:43 <fantasai> No, first make Disposition of Comments :)
23:39:47 <TabAtkins_> ;_;
23:40:28 <fantasai> also, I have to review your changes to object sizing algo ^_^
23:40:53 <fantasai> ^^;
23:40:55 <TabAtkins_> Smart computer.
23:40:58 <fantasai> yeah
23:42:59 <TabAtkins_> All right, cool.  I'm fine with all the decisions in the minutes.
23:43:06 <TabAtkins_> I'll make edits and then respond to the minutes when you post them.
23:43:08 <fantasai> cool
23:43:09 <hober> yay!
23:43:10 <fantasai> kk
23:48:30 <TabAtkins_> Yes!
23:49:11 <fantasai> cvsweb also had a handy two-colum diff view
23:49:24 <fantasai> :/
23:56:09 <TabAtkins_> All right, all edits completed.
23:56:38 <fantasai> TabAtkins_: did you dump element() into the CSS4 draft?
23:56:50 <TabAtkins_> I've commented it out in the Images3 draft.
23:57:03 <TabAtkins_> I'll dump into Images4 when I spend the effort to actually make that a real thing.
23:57:07 <fantasai> k
23:57:17 <fantasai> We should do that once this hits CR.
23:57:21 <TabAtkins_> Yup.
23:57:22 <TabAtkins_> That's my plan.
23:57:41 <fantasai> just copy over the whole thing and splice in the extra stuff...
23:58:06 <fantasai> ok, so can you post to www-style in response to the various commenters about how their issue was resolved and record that in the DoC? :)
23:58:22 <TabAtkins_> Just, like, in general?
23:58:34 <fantasai> Sure, why not? :D
23:58:39 <fantasai> At least do the ones you just edited, tho
23:59:17 <fantasai> I guess dropping element() would be Issue 17
23:59:45 <TabAtkins_> Man, I should have made an images/ folder for Images.
23:59:57 <TabAtkins_> All these images in my Images makes it annoying to find the useful files.