IRC log of css on 2012-04-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:31:35 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #css
15:31:35 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:31:41 [glazou]
Zakim, this will be Style
15:31:41 [Zakim]
ok, glazou; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 29 minutes
15:31:47 [glazou]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:38:59 [mollydotcom]
mollydotcom has joined #css
15:52:44 [antonp]
antonp has joined #css
15:57:13 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
15:57:20 [Zakim]
15:57:25 [Zakim]
+ +8521616aaaa
15:57:25 [glazou]
Zakim, ??P2 is me
15:57:25 [Zakim]
+glazou; got it
15:58:02 [Zakim]
+ +1.206.324.aabb
15:58:14 [sylvaing]
Zakim, aabb is sylvaing
15:58:14 [Zakim]
+sylvaing; got it
15:58:14 [bradk]
bradk has joined #css
15:58:17 [Zakim]
15:58:37 [krit]
krit has joined #css
15:58:58 [arronei]
zakim, microsoft has me
15:58:58 [Zakim]
+arronei; got it
15:59:08 [Zakim]
15:59:11 [Zakim]
+ +93550aacc
15:59:27 [Zakim]
15:59:37 [antonp]
Zakim, aacc is me
15:59:37 [Zakim]
+antonp; got it
15:59:47 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.766.aadd
15:59:51 [Zakim]
+ +1.206.550.aaee
15:59:59 [stearns]
zakim, aaee is me
16:00:02 [Zakim]
16:00:05 [bradk]
Zakim, aaddis me.
16:00:19 [bradk]
Zakim, aadd is me.
16:00:21 [Zakim]
+stearns; got it
16:00:28 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'aaddis me', bradk
16:00:28 [vhardy_]
vhardy_ has joined #css
16:00:35 [krit]
Zakim, Oliver_Goldman is me
16:00:37 [dbaron]
Zakim seems pretty broken right now
16:00:42 [dbaron]
it hung up on me
16:00:42 [Zakim]
+bradk; got it
16:00:42 [Katie]
Katie has joined #css
16:00:51 [JohnJansen]
JohnJansen has joined #css
16:00:54 [Zakim]
16:00:57 [dbaron]
and didn't answer the first time; hung up the second time
16:01:02 [Zakim]
+krit; got it
16:01:02 [hober]
Zakim, Apple has hober
16:01:04 [Zakim]
16:01:06 [fantasai]
zakim, aaaa is me
16:01:06 [bradk]
Zakim seems distracted
16:01:08 [JohnJansen]
Zakim, Microsoft has JohnJansen
16:01:14 [vhardy_]
Zakim, who is here
16:01:15 [smfr]
smfr has joined #css
16:01:17 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.832.aaff
16:01:20 [dbaron]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:01:21 [Zakim]
16:01:33 [Zakim]
+hober; got it
16:01:40 [Zakim]
+fantasai; got it
16:01:41 [Zakim]
16:01:43 [Zakim]
+JohnJansen; got it
16:01:50 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.766.aagg
16:01:51 [Zakim]
vhardy_, you need to end that query with '?'
16:02:02 [florian_]
Zakim, I might be ??P59
16:02:03 [Zakim]
On the phone I see glazou, fantasai, sylvaing, [Microsoft], ??P36, antonp, krit, bradk, stearns, [Microsoft.a], [Apple], Molly_Holzschlag, +1.415.832.aaff, [Microsoft.aa], ??P59,
16:02:08 [Zakim]
... +1.415.766.aagg
16:02:12 [dbaron]
Zakim, aagg is dbaron
16:02:12 [Zakim]
[Microsoft] has JohnJansen
16:02:17 [Zakim]
[Apple] has hober
16:02:17 [Katie]
_Zakim, [Microsoft.aa] is me
16:02:18 [vhardy_]
Zakim +1.415.832.aaff is me
16:02:25 [florian_]
Zakim, I am ??P59
16:02:34 [Zakim]
16:02:45 [Zakim]
16:02:54 [smfr]
Zakim, y u no acknowledge my joining?
16:02:56 [glazou]
bradk: eh
16:02:57 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'I might be ??P59', florian_
16:03:02 [Zakim]
+dbaron; got it
16:03:09 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.636.aahh
16:03:14 [Zakim]
+florian_; got it
16:03:15 [Cathy]
Cathy has joined #css
16:03:15 [smfr]
Zakin, aahh is me
16:03:25 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, smfr.
16:03:26 [glazou]
regrets: dstorey, chrisl (potential), plinss (potential)
16:03:28 [arno]
arno has joined #css
16:03:39 [arno]
Zakim, who just joined?
16:03:40 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.832.aaii
16:03:40 [dbaron]
Zakim, aahh is smfr
16:03:47 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, arno.
16:03:49 [Zakim]
+smfr; got it
16:04:01 [arno]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:04:02 [divya]
divya has joined #css
16:04:11 [Zakim]
On the phone I see glazou, fantasai, sylvaing, [Microsoft], ??P36, antonp, bradk, stearns, [Microsoft.a], [Apple], Molly_Holzschlag, +1.415.832.aaff, [Microsoft.aa], florian_,
16:04:15 [Zakim]
... dbaron, [], smfr, +1.415.832.aaii
16:04:17 [Zakim]
[Microsoft] has JohnJansen
16:04:18 [Zakim]
[Apple] has hober
16:04:27 [arno]
Zakim, aaii is me.
16:04:34 [Zakim]
+arno; got it
16:04:51 [vhardy_]
Zakim +1.415.832.aaff is me
16:04:59 [dbaron]
Zakim, aaff is vhardy_
16:04:59 [Zakim]
+vhardy_; got it
16:05:05 [Zakim]
16:05:27 [tantek]
tantek has joined #css
16:05:35 [vhardy_]
glazou: any extra agenda items?
16:05:41 [vhardy_]
molly: I have one for later.
16:05:52 [vhardy_]
glazou: we need to start collecting items for the Hamburg F2F
16:06:05 [dbaron]
16:06:18 [vhardy_]
glazou: all, please add your requests to the meeting.
16:06:30 [vhardy_]
... text-size adjust proposal by baron and tantek
16:06:38 [vhardy_]
... we have a request to move to an editor draft
16:06:45 [vhardy_]
dbaron: I sent a draft.
16:06:56 [vhardy_]
... it is a small draft. I'd like it to stay self contained.
16:07:07 [vhardy_]
... I'd like to keep it as one document to advance it quickly
16:07:23 [vhardy_]
glazou: we decided to move this as fast as possible if we start to work on it. Makes sense to keep it like this.
16:07:38 [vhardy_]
... my only problem is Issue #4 about % as values. This is undefined.
16:07:49 [vhardy_]
dbaron: I don't know what they do. Someone needs to tell us.
16:08:04 [vhardy_]
florian: I do not think there is a problem with publishing with that issue opened.
16:08:10 [vhardy_]
... should not effect publication.
16:08:17 [stearns]
zakim, who is noisy?
16:08:17 [glazou]
Zakim, mute vhardy_
16:08:17 [Zakim]
vhardy_ should now be muted
16:08:18 [dbaron]
florian: ... though I think we should drop percentages
16:08:19 [vhardy_]
... if we publish this draft, it is a good starting point.
16:08:23 [Zakim]
16:08:27 [Zakim]
stearns, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: glazou (9%), Molly_Holzschlag (5%), florian_ (84%), dbaron (7%)
16:08:29 [kojiishi]
zakim, ??p80 is me
16:08:30 [Zakim]
+kojiishi; got it
16:08:37 [glazou]
vhardy_: I muted you
16:08:42 [vhardy_]
... it is a weird feature. It does not describe the layout as such, but only when used with certain browser features.
16:08:49 [vhardy_]
... we do not have anything else like this.
16:09:13 [vhardy_]
dbaron: we have features that are specific to implementations that scroll with scrollbars. We have screen v.s., print. This is a feature specific to impl...
16:09:27 [vhardy_]
... that do the text-size-adjust in a certain way. Not all mobile browsers, but some.
16:09:35 [vhardy_]
glazou: any objection to move to an ED of the group?
16:09:52 [sylvaing]
16:10:00 [glenn]
glenn has joined #css
16:10:17 [sylvaing]
(never mind, missed the name earlier)
16:10:21 [divya]
zakim, unmute vhardy
16:10:21 [Zakim]
vhardy_ should no longer be muted
16:10:41 [Zakim]
16:10:54 [fantasai]
fantasai: When would we publish FPWD?
16:10:55 [glenn]
+present glenn (irc only)
16:10:56 [vhardy_]
glazou: when do we moved to FPWD?
16:10:57 [tantek]
scribe, I am participating only by IRC this morning (for the minutes)
16:11:06 [fantasai]
glazou: Issue #4 needs more work before we publish.
16:11:14 [haili]
haili has joined #css
16:11:16 [dbaron]
dbaron: and maybe other things
16:11:17 [glazou]
tantek: ED for text-sizeadjust granted
16:11:17 [vhardy_]
... I think issue #4 needs more work. Dbaron agrees that he wants to work more on the document before that.
16:11:24 [tantek]
thank you glazou
16:11:33 [tantek]
agree with dbaron
16:11:57 [vhardy_]
RESOLUTION: Move text-size adjust to ED.
16:12:16 [Zakim]
+ +1.215.286.aajj
16:12:25 [vhardy_]
molly: I wanted to report on the community group liaison. Including what Simon and Erik were working on, fragment identifiers.
16:12:35 [vhardy_]
.... people are looking for more people to help.
16:12:43 [Phil]
Phil has joined #css
16:12:45 [vhardy_]
glazou: no action required at this point?
16:13:02 [vhardy_]
molly: no. But if you have interns or other people who would like to participate, send them to me.
16:13:09 [vhardy_]
glazou: backgrounds and borders.
16:13:21 [glazou]
16:13:24 [vhardy_]
... one last issue requested and then request to move to CR.
16:13:29 [kimberly]
kimberly has joined #css
16:13:29 [fantasai]
16:14:18 [vhardy_]
fantasai: the issue is a request to what properties apply to ::first-line and :first-letter. We will clarify that they apply to first-letter. For first-line, CSS allows background, but borders are not. There are some
16:14:48 [vhardy_]
... discussions about this because borders affect the box model. There is several different ways to handle the situation. First proposal:
16:15:25 [vhardy_]
.. first line takes all the background properties, may support the border properties and must not support the other ones. This is in the email.
16:15:31 [Phil]
Phil has joined #css
16:15:42 [vhardy_]
.. there is a variation to put box shadow in the must not category.
16:15:55 [vhardy_]
.. I do not think there is a good reason to do that because it does not affect layout.
16:16:47 [vhardy_]
... the third proposal is to include border-radius in the must support category. Then, there is a proposal to add the border image into the must support category.
16:17:03 [vhardy_]
... nobody participating feels strongly about requiring support for border-image.
16:17:32 [vhardy_]
... there was concerns about allowing box-shadow because it is not supported in IE 9 because it was forbidden before.
16:17:41 [vhardy_]
... proposal is to put boxh-shadow in the may category.
16:18:12 [fantasai]
s/proposal/my preference/
16:18:14 [vhardy_]
florian: agree on box-shadow and no strong feeling on others, but ok between 1 or 2.
16:18:30 [smfr]
webkit already supports box-shadow on ::first-letter
16:18:45 [vhardy_]
brad: prefer 3. Like to allow implementations to have border-image and box-shadow and border-image on the first line.
16:19:10 [vhardy_]
fantasai: all proposals would allow these properties. 3 requires them.
16:19:16 [vhardy_]
brad: I prefer requiring.
16:19:18 [smfr]
webkit supports on ::first-line also
16:19:20 [vhardy_]
glazou: others?
16:19:35 [vhardy_]
smfr: 1 and 2 are my preference. No strong preference, leaning towards 2.
16:19:38 [dbaron]
dbaron: I don't have a strong opinion
16:19:42 [vhardy_]
dbaron: no strong opinion.
16:19:48 [smfr]
16:19:49 [dbaron]
16:19:53 [vhardy_]
glazou: seems like 2 is the easiest way for the time being?
16:19:58 [vhardy_]
fantasai: that's my favorite.
16:20:08 [vhardy_]
glazou: 2 acceptable compromize?
16:20:18 [vhardy_]
brad: 2 allows border image but does not require it?
16:20:22 [vhardy_]
fantasai: yes.
16:20:31 [vhardy_]
brad: box shadow allowed but not required.
16:20:44 [vhardy_]
fantasai: yes, I think that should be the case. Do you have an objection to that?
16:20:53 [vhardy_]
sylvaing: no.
16:21:18 [vhardy_]
RESOLVED: proposal #2 accepted for properties on ::first-line
16:21:34 [vhardy_]
fantasai: with these two edits, I think the last two comments will turn green.
16:21:44 [vhardy_]
bert: I think you are right. Checking the disposition of comments.
16:22:19 [vhardy_]
glazou: John you sent a message about testing background and borders.
16:22:19 [Bert]
-> DoC
16:22:55 [vhardy_]
john: I have not got an answer to my questions. My tests are still in the incoming and submitted folders. I do not yet know which parts are covered. Still work needed for the test suite.
16:23:10 [vhardy_]
dbaron: the Mozilla tests are detailed tests of small sections of the spec.
16:23:17 [vhardy_]
... e..g., tests on vector images.
16:23:30 [vhardy_]
fantasai: don't we have tests on other things?
16:23:37 [vhardy_]
dbaron: there may be more we could contribute.
16:23:44 [vhardy_]
glazou: this is an effort we should start now.
16:23:58 [vhardy_]
... bert you pasted a link to disposition of comments. I still see orange.
16:24:15 [vhardy_]
bert: orange means we are waiting for acknowledgment from the commenters.
16:24:22 [vhardy_]
glazou: I also see 3 open issues.
16:24:30 [vhardy_]
bert: I think they should be green or orange.
16:24:43 [vhardy_]
... we should mark that as accepted.
16:24:54 [vhardy_]
fantasai: we clarified the section that was confusing.
16:25:20 [vhardy_]
glazou: issue #7 is opened and should be changed. 18 and 22?
16:25:29 [vhardy_]
fantasai: we just resolved and I'll make the change.
16:25:45 [vhardy_]
glazou: we can make the transition request to move to CR. objections?
16:25:48 [vhardy_]
16:26:06 [vhardy_]
RESOLVED: Move Background and borders to CR
16:26:16 [fantasai]
ACTION: fantasai and Bert, finish edits and update DoC
16:26:16 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-456 - And Bert, finish edits and update DoC [on Elika Etemad - due 2012-04-11].
16:26:19 [vhardy_]
glazou: CSS 2.1 margin collapsing.
16:26:57 [vhardy_]
anton: we are looking at the CSS 2.1 errata items.
16:26:57 [Zakim]
16:27:12 [vhardy_]
... the idea is to propose some solutions, seek feedback and then fix by bits and then sign off.
16:27:34 [vhardy_]
... the ones we are going to look at right now have to do with margin collapsing and related to the issues discussed during the Paris F2F.
16:27:47 [vhardy_]
... there are 2 links in the agenda. Let's concentrate on the second one.
16:27:52 [antonp]
16:28:21 [dbaron]
16:29:03 [Zakim]
16:29:05 [glazou]
Belated Regrets: szilles
16:29:21 [vhardy__]
vhardy__ has joined #css
16:29:41 [vhardy__]
ScribeNick: vhardy__
16:29:48 [dbaron]
Zakim, ??P1 is Haili_Zhang
16:29:48 [Zakim]
+Haili_Zhang; got it
16:30:18 [vhardy__]
antonp: the 3 issues in that link were discussed in Paris. The proposals were discussed with Aaron. I am hoping we can get agreement.
16:30:22 [glazou]
16:30:23 [antonp]
16:30:39 [vhardy__]
... the specific proposals are on the link
16:31:12 [vhardy__]
... there was a strange note on 10.7 on the effects of min/max height. I am proposing a simplification of this note.
16:31:21 [vhardy__]
... the proposal is to delete the second sentence of the note.
16:31:50 [antonp]
I'll dial in again!
16:31:51 [glazou]
antonp: can't hear you
16:31:52 [glazou]
16:31:54 [Zakim]
16:32:27 [Zakim]
16:32:51 [dbaron]
16:33:09 [vhardy__]
antonp: the second sentence is not necessary and it is confusing.
16:33:27 [vhardy__]
glazou: I suggest we discuss this one first.
16:33:40 [vhardy__]
florian: what was the sentence attempting to do?
16:34:09 [vhardy__]
fantasai: it was trying to say these steps did not affect margin collapsing. Removing the sentence, removes the clarification. We need to reword in a less confusing way.
16:34:42 [vhardy__]
... could be "for example, margin collapsing is not affected because based on computed values and not used values"
16:34:52 [vhardy__]
glazou: the sentences are in a note?
16:34:56 [vhardy__]
antong: yes.
16:35:19 [glazou]
16:35:21 [vhardy__]
... I think that whatever we say raises more questions than it helps.
16:35:38 [vhardy__]
fantasai: any problem with my suggested rewording?
16:35:47 [vhardy__]
antonp: yes.
16:36:16 [vhardy__]
... the majority of layout is in the same position. When we tried to reword, it seemed odd to attract attention to a particular part of layout. I still don't think it is necessary.
16:36:54 [vhardy__]
arronei: I think it raises questions. I understand we say 'for example' and it still raises questions. It is loosely related, but it should be taken as two separate pieces.
16:37:06 [vhardy__]
... if it is clear that it only works with computed values, let it say that.
16:37:24 [vhardy__]
fantasai: for people who are not familiar with the spec., it helps understand the difference.
16:37:37 [vhardy__]
... and how the distinction can affect the computations.
16:38:07 [vhardy__]
glazou: it seems to me that the two sentences should to be glued together in the same note. We could have one for anton and arronei's issue and the one for fantasia's point.
16:38:21 [vhardy__]
florian: I have a mild preference for fantasai's proposal.
16:38:53 [vhardy__]
molly: I think that if someone comes against used/computed for the first time, clarification as an example is useful.
16:38:58 [vhardy__]
... leaning towards that.
16:39:15 [vhardy__]
glazou: is fantasai's proposal a compromise you can live with?
16:39:33 [vhardy__]
arronei: I think that what fantasia proposes is fine, with 'for example' prefix. May need some rewording.
16:40:00 [vhardy__]
RESOLVED: replace the sentence with Fantasai's proposal.
16:40:13 [vhardy__]
glazou: next one?
16:40:26 [fantasai]
16:41:08 [vhardy__]
antonp: we discussed in some details in Paris. margins collapse all the way through an element that had a non-zero min-height. We decided we would prevent some aspects of the
16:41:17 [vhardy__]
margin collapse to avoid the case described in the bug.
16:41:35 [vhardy__]
... the proposal is to add a new bullet to the section describing which adjoining margins collapse.
16:41:41 [glazou]
16:41:43 [antonp]
16:42:04 [vhardy__]
glazou: proposal is not in the bug.
16:42:16 [vhardy__]
antonp: I will do that as the outcome of this call.
16:42:25 [vhardy__]
florian: is that identical to the F2F discussion?
16:42:31 [vhardy__]
antonp: yes, it is identical.
16:43:19 [vhardy__]
florian: I agree with the F2F conclusion and still agree.
16:43:44 [vhardy__]
arronei: we did not want to change the f2f discussion, just make sure the changes are happening in the right places.
16:43:50 [vhardy__]
glazou: any objections?
16:44:01 [vhardy__]
fantasai: the suggestion in the bug and email is different.
16:44:18 [vhardy__]
... why the differences.
16:44:43 [vhardy__]
antonp: there is a long history, emails on the mailing list. Negociating the cleanest way to specify what we now say. Editorial differences.
16:44:51 [vhardy__]
.. about clarity.
16:44:57 [vhardy__]
fantasai: I see.
16:45:30 [vhardy__]
antonp: in the bug report, we were trying to tweak the definition of what was adjacent. The current proposal talks about preventing collapsing in some cases.
16:45:48 [vhardy__]
.. we decided it was better to focus on the collapsing element of this rather than the adjacent element of it.
16:46:03 [vhardy__]
florian: reading the sentence makes sense and it says the same thing we discussed at the f2f.
16:46:10 [vhardy__]
fantasai: I am ok with it.
16:46:17 [vhardy__]
... I'd like dbaron's opinion.
16:46:36 [vhardy__]
antonp: this does not affect adjointness at all.
16:47:04 [vhardy__]
... this prevents certain margins from collapsing. Are we contradicting other parts that say that margins collapse.
16:47:19 [vhardy__]
dbaron: I believe the defintion of adjointness is transitive.
16:47:44 [vhardy__]
antonp: this is the subject of another post on the agenda.
16:48:28 [vhardy__]
dbaron: I'd rather say they are not adjoining rather than say they do not collapse.
16:48:37 [vhardy__]
fantasai: would that be the proposal in the bug report?
16:48:52 [vhardy__]
antonp: checking.
16:49:46 [vhardy__]
antonp: this was part of a discussion we had. Aron's preference was to not make them adjoining as well.
16:50:07 [vhardy__]
... but, to me, it does not make a whole of conceptual sense. They are adjoining, but they do not collapse.
16:50:27 [vhardy__]
arronei: some times, they are adjoining, so it is hard to say they are not in these cases.
16:51:02 [vhardy__]
florian: in the layman interpretation of adjoining, they may be or not.
16:51:32 [vhardy__]
antonp: I do not think there is a problem with the definition of adjoining. It is supposed to reflect an intuitive understanding.
16:51:47 [vhardy__]
.. if people want to make it not adjoining, I'd like to understand why.
16:53:30 [dbaron]
dbaron: The reason that we don't want these to collapse is that in most cases the min-height causes these margins not to be next to each other.
16:53:31 [vhardy__]
dbaron: the reason we don't want collapsing here, is that in most cases, the min-height causes the margins to not be next to each other and should not collapse.
16:53:41 [vhardy__]
antonp: another aspect, is that this is hard to word.
16:53:53 [vhardy__]
.. you have to specify the conditions. They are very specific.
16:54:48 [vhardy__]
.. on the one hand, I understand the argument that they are not always next to each other, but it is really hard to word the sentence about them not being adjoining.
16:54:59 [glazou]
sylvaing: lol
16:55:55 [vhardy__]
florian: If there was an easy way to say they are not adjoining, I would prefer that, but since there is not I am find with Antonp's proposal.
16:56:02 [vhardy__]
glazou: dbaron, are you ok?
16:56:15 [vhardy__]
dbaron: hard to say, I'll go with whatever they say?
16:56:24 [vhardy__]
16:56:34 [vhardy__]
glazou: objections to the proposal?
16:56:43 [vhardy__]
RESOLVED: proposal in email 0052 accepted.
16:56:53 [vhardy__]
glazou: only 4mn remaining.
16:57:10 [vhardy__]
dbaron: was that the second proposal in the email?
16:57:13 [vhardy__]
glazou: yes.
16:57:21 [vhardy__]
dbaron: we have not talked about the 3rd one?
16:57:25 [vhardy__]
antonp: right
16:57:31 [fantasai]
s/accepted/accepted for bug 16036/
16:57:39 [glazou]
16:57:44 [vhardy__]
glazou: we have a proposal relayed by leaverou about a new media query.
16:58:20 [vhardy__]
florian: I have thought about this (about bandwidth). While this could be interesting, I am not sure how you would use it or make it work.
16:58:40 [vhardy__]
glazou: on mobile devices, this would allow you to switch between Wifi, 3G, others...
16:58:58 [vhardy__]
florian: you could be connected to multiple at the same time. You could have wifi slower than 3D, etc...
16:59:00 [Katie]
My concern is about mobile...the fact that speeds vary frequently.
16:59:05 [dbaron]
16:59:15 [vhardy__]
... if you switch from one connection type to another while loading, it is hard to say what should happen.
16:59:25 [vhardy__]
... not sure there is a good way to use that.
16:59:30 [vhardy__]
glazou: what do others think?
17:00:05 [vhardy__]
fantasai: I would say that if you have to make a decision at the beginning and not change that later during the life of the document. That makes it easier to define.
17:00:34 [dbaron]
I don't think authors want us to reload to use smaller images when the bandwidth goes down
17:00:35 [vhardy__]
.. it would be useful in other cases (e.g., dial-up connection).
17:00:53 [vhardy__]
glazou: enough people have concerns with it and we do not need to work on it for the next level of media queries.
17:01:04 [vhardy__]
florian: the proposal needs to be more specific.
17:01:20 [vhardy__]
ACTION: Florian to respond to Lea's email on the mailing list.
17:01:20 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-457 - Respond to Lea's email on the mailing list. [on Florian Rivoal - due 2012-04-11].
17:01:32 [vhardy__]
sylvaing: I think use cases are missing.
17:01:37 [vhardy__]
glazou: yes, that is a good answer.
17:01:45 [Katie]
17:01:46 [Zakim]
17:01:47 [Zakim]
17:02:13 [Zakim]
17:02:15 [Zakim]
17:02:16 [Zakim]
- +1.215.286.aajj
17:02:17 [Zakim]
17:02:18 [Zakim]
17:02:18 [Zakim]
17:02:20 [Zakim]
17:02:20 [Zakim]
17:02:21 [Zakim]
17:02:22 [Zakim]
17:02:25 [Zakim]
17:02:26 [Zakim]
17:02:27 [antonp]
antonp has left #css
17:02:28 [Zakim]
17:02:30 [Zakim]
17:02:32 [Zakim]
17:02:34 [Zakim]
17:02:36 [Zakim]
17:02:38 [Zakim]
17:02:40 [Zakim]
17:02:42 [Zakim]
17:02:45 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
17:02:46 [Zakim]
Attendees were +8521616aaaa, glazou, +1.206.324.aabb, sylvaing, arronei, +93550aacc, antonp, +1.650.766.aadd, +1.206.550.aaee, [Microsoft], stearns, bradk, krit, Molly_Holzschlag,
17:02:49 [Zakim]
... +1.415.832.aaff, hober, fantasai, JohnJansen, +1.415.766.aagg, dbaron, +1.408.636.aahh, florian_, +1.415.832.aaii, smfr, arno, vhardy_, Bert, kojiishi, +1.215.286.aajj,
17:02:52 [Zakim]
... Haili_Zhang
17:03:16 [jet]
jet has joined #CSS
17:03:56 [mollydotcom]
mollydotcom has left #css
17:09:05 [divya]
divya has left #css
17:22:17 [drublic]
drublic has joined #css
17:31:24 [arno]
arno has joined #css
17:50:39 [florian_]
florian_ has left #css
18:01:00 [arno]
arno has joined #css
18:30:59 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #css
18:34:47 [Ms2ger]
Ms2ger has joined #css
18:45:43 [jet]
jet has joined #CSS
18:47:17 [divya1]
divya1 has joined #css
19:00:20 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
19:16:42 [arno]
arno has joined #css
19:51:04 [divya]
divya has joined #css
20:00:12 [drublic]
drublic has joined #css
20:08:00 [glenn]
glenn has joined #css
20:19:03 [stearns]
stearns has joined #css
20:19:28 [divya]
divya has left #css
20:39:47 [kennyluck]
kennyluck has joined #css
21:16:44 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #css
21:17:37 [isherman]
isherman has joined #css
21:31:36 [danielfilho]
danielfilho has joined #css
21:34:46 [arno]
arno has joined #css
22:01:03 [arno]
arno has joined #css
22:27:38 [tantek]
tantek has joined #css
23:01:43 [arno]
arno has joined #css
23:26:41 [leaverou]
Hey, I'm writing an article for listing common misconceptions about web standards (mostly W3C standards) and debunking them. What are the myths you guys see out there more often?
23:26:48 [leaverou]
So far I have the CSS3 one (no such thing), the myth that W3C creates standards from up high and the myth that you have to work for a member company to contribute.
23:27:34 [leaverou]
cc fantasai sylvaing
23:27:43 [sylvaing]
23:27:44 [hober]
leaverou: I imagine Hixie & tantek might have a few opinions on that question
23:28:00 [leaverou]
hi sylvaing :)
23:28:07 [leaverou]
thx hober
23:28:54 [tantek]
leaverou - there's a myth that articles work to document web knowledge which is accrued over time and updated incrementally, whereas a wiki page works much better for that purpose.
23:29:55 [tantek]
but if you're looking for specific historical myths, there are some easy ones like:
23:30:15 [leaverou]
tantek: true, but that's a bit out of scope. The article is mostly about the standardization process and its results
23:30:39 [sylvaing]
there is a myth that -webkit means future CSS ? :)
23:30:40 [tantek]
myth: "Google invented HTML5" (per their big push at Google I/O 2009 I think)
23:30:52 [leaverou]
sylvaing: really?!
23:31:02 [sylvaing]
i know, right?
23:31:06 [tantek]
myth: "Apple invented HTML5" (misinterpreted from Steve Jobs' blog post)
23:31:07 [leaverou]
that's insane
23:31:25 [hober]
reality: tantek invented HTML5
23:31:26 [hober]
23:31:36 [tantek]
myth: "H264 is an open standard" (from same Steve Jobs post)
23:31:48 [leaverou]
tantek: thanks, those are the kind of thing I'm looking for! keep 'em coming! :)
23:31:49 [tantek]
myth: "CSS3 is part of HTML5"
23:31:56 [sylvaing]
yes, that's a good one
23:32:02 [tantek]
myth: "-webkit- properties are web standard"
23:32:08 [hober]
of course, this is also a myth: WebM is an open standard
23:32:09 [tantek]
(again per same Steve Jobs post)
23:32:26 [leaverou]
I have to admit I'm quite surprised that these are actually widespread beliefs out there. Are you sure they are?
23:32:31 [tantek]
hober, what about WebM is not "open" per your definition?
23:32:46 [leaverou]
hober: why isn't it open?!
23:33:03 [sylvaing]
oh man, hober. you were doing so well....
23:33:19 [sylvaing]
one full day of margin collapsing for you.
23:33:27 [hober]
sylvaing: hahhaa, noooooo
23:33:30 [leaverou]
23:33:35 [tantek]
sylvaing LOL
23:33:42 [tantek]
leaverou - yes
23:33:51 [tantek]
I had to fight a big blog battle about this not that long ago
23:33:55 [tantek]
are memories that short?
23:34:59 [tantek]
leaverou here, start with the blog posts listed here:
23:35:08 [tantek]
23:35:41 [tantek]
originally even W3C made the error of marketing a grab-bug of technology as "HTML5"
23:35:46 [tantek]
e.g. "The [HTML5] logo is a general-purpose visual identity for a broad set of open web technologies, including HTML5, CSS, SVG, WOFF, and others. "
23:35:49 [tantek]
that's been fixed since
23:35:52 [leaverou]
tantek: yeah, I remember that
23:35:54 [sylvaing]
myth: w3schools has something to do with w3c.
23:36:00 [leaverou]
sylvaing: ohhhh good one!
23:36:08 [sylvaing]
myth: w3schools has something to do with anything at all
23:36:20 [tantek]
leaverou - thus don't act surprised about these myths, even W3C was pressured into propagating them (briefly)
23:36:21 [hober]
well, i was going to drop a link to the webm spec in here, but boy is it hard to find. weird.
23:36:44 [tantek]
before myself and several others publicly called bullshytt and got it changed
23:36:54 [leaverou]
tantek: yeah, I remember that turmoil
23:37:31 [sylvaing]
non-myth: as a rule, some drama erupts just in time for TPAC
23:38:39 [sylvaing]
such as said logos, as I recall
23:38:55 [tantek]
leaverou - here is a *huge* source of myths for you: - that site claims all kinds of things as "HTML5" and tests them as such (scores them as such) when several of them are NOT part of / required by HTML5
23:39:17 [sylvaing]
hober, tabatkins: btw, check out I think Firefox is correct here. WebKit is being real weird.
23:40:40 [leaverou]
tantek: the problem is that for the more knowledgeable developers, those myths are common and well known. I was more aiming towards myths that are widespread even among more knowledgeable authors. Like the myth about CSS3 for example. Or the many misconceptions surrounding how W3C and the working groups work
23:41:44 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
23:41:50 [tantek]
leaverou - not true. even "knowledgable developers" link to without knowing/understanding that it errantly includes things as part of "HTML5"
23:41:54 [tantek]
23:41:59 [tantek]
e.g. things that wrongly includes as part of HTML5: support for specific codecs (with hard to read grey disclaimer text), microdata
23:42:05 [tantek]
and those are just the obvious ones
23:42:53 [leaverou]
tantek: the fact that they link to it, doesn't necessarily imply they consider these part of HTML5.
23:43:03 [tantek]
hint: if listing of the feature DOES NOT link to then it's not part of HTML5
23:43:16 [tantek]
leaverou, the site is called *HTML5TEST*
23:43:28 [tantek]
not HTML5plusextrastest
23:43:35 [tantek]
nor mywebplatformtest
23:43:37 [tantek]
23:43:43 [leaverou]
tantek, I made a site called a while ago, but even I don't think there is such a thing as CSS3
23:43:59 [tantek]
but there *are* CSS3 modules
23:44:14 [sylvaing]
a part that is maybe misunderstood but also largely unknown is around testing and the test suites
23:44:17 [tantek]
and in your links, you can link to… links
23:44:18 [leaverou]
yeah, but there is no point in making a term for all level 3 modules
23:44:22 [leaverou]
it's misleading
23:44:36 [leaverou]
even more so now that many new modules start from level 1
23:44:38 [tantek]
the point is - there are plenty of "advanced" developers that get this wrong
23:44:43 [tantek]
about HTML5
23:44:50 [sylvaing]
i.e. the work done by WGs such as CSS to validate specs using test suites
23:44:56 [tantek]
so yes, it's valid for your article to point this out
23:45:05 [tantek]
and call out sites like for adding to the confusion
23:45:14 [leaverou]
sylvaing: could you elaborate on that? It sounds interesting
23:45:26 [leaverou]
I mean, what myths surround it?
23:45:48 [tantek]
especially when browser vendors marketing departments use the "points" from to "prove" their browser is more HTML5 than the other guys browser
23:45:53 [sylvaing]
it's not really a myth; more like the habit to use ACID3 and other equivalent tests as a proxy for conformance
23:46:00 [sylvaing]
23:46:14 [sylvaing]
when, often, w3c has far more in-depth test suites
23:46:29 [sylvaing]
though, unfortunately, running them can be a challenge
23:46:40 [leaverou]
very true :/
23:46:58 [tantek]
btw from what I remember reading / analyzing, is better about this
23:47:00 [sylvaing]
but i think few people understand w3c also produces tests for its specs; and how much work goes in there
23:48:05 [leaverou]
sylvaing: true. I've wrote it down, and I'll try to find a way to fit it into the myth - explanation format
23:48:24 [leaverou]
tantek: it is
23:49:16 [leaverou]
tantek: I guess I should have rephrased it as, those myths are very well documented in existing texts. I can't even count how many times I've read posts about how "X is not a part of HTML5"
23:49:30 [leaverou]
so, I'd prefer to discuss less popular myths
23:49:43 [tantek]
wow this is messed up - there's a wikipedia article on Google's Web Intents - but CSS3 only gets a small section in the CSS article and *none* of the CSS3 modules, even the ones that are Recommendations (e.g. Selectors, CSS3-Color) have their own Wikipedia articles.
23:50:03 [sylvaing]
well, i think the WHATWG/W3C versions of HTML5 is generally not well understood.
23:50:13 [tantek]
leaverou - as long as the errant sites exist without fixes, the myths are not well documented
23:50:17 [leaverou]
sylvaing: you're a treasure today! thank you so much!!
23:50:25 [sylvaing]
not so much a myth as a big source of confusion
23:50:36 [tantek]
sylvaing - what's to understand? WHATWG develops "HTML" (no version #), W3C develops "HTML5"
23:50:40 [tantek]
problem solved
23:50:40 [tantek]
23:50:55 [sylvaing]
I rest my case :)
23:51:00 [leaverou]
23:51:11 [tantek]
ergo, if it's not in - then it's not in "HTML5"
23:51:38 [sylvaing]
myth: timbl speaks 100 words per minute. he's way faster than that
23:52:50 [sylvaing]
tantek, I think the number of folks who have kept up with the nuance is pretty limited. More importantly, what does it concretely mean for a web developer seems all over the map
23:52:50 [tantek]
myth: namespaces are needed (for anything in formats)
23:53:35 [tantek]
myth: Yahoo is a search engine (it's not, they shut their search engine down a while ago, and are now just a search *UI* on top of Bing's search engine)
23:54:57 [sylvaing]
there are also misunderstandings about 'w3c took 10+ years to finish CSS2.1'
23:55:44 [sylvaing]
strictly speaking, that's correct. but context would help i.e. when a browser vendor with 90+% market share disengages for several years, releasing a REC is not so meaningful
23:55:47 [sylvaing]
for instance
23:55:55 [leaverou]
sylvaing: maybe that's part of a greater misunderstanding about spec statuses
23:56:11 [sylvaing]
right. the larger point being that members have a big influence on speed or lack thereof
23:57:02 [leaverou]
sylvaing: there's a good one somewhere in that
23:57:06 [leaverou]
23:58:47 [sylvaing]
maybe the role of spec editors is also misunderstood but maybe that's a sub-section of the whatwg/w3c differences
23:59:54 [leaverou]
sylvaing: misunderstood how?