IRC log of css on 2012-04-25

Timestamps are in UTC.

00:49:24 [SteveZ]
SteveZ has joined #css
01:03:45 [jdaggett]
jdaggett has joined #css
01:14:52 [myakura]
myakura has joined #css
02:49:23 [tantek]
tantek has joined #css
02:53:34 [glenn]
glenn has joined #css
03:18:55 [krit]
krit has joined #css
03:39:12 [myakura]
myakura has joined #css
03:59:26 [tantek]
tantek has joined #css
04:07:52 [krijnh]
krijnh has joined #css
04:20:07 [myakura]
myakura has joined #css
05:53:48 [myakura]
myakura has joined #css
06:43:16 [Ms2ger]
Ms2ger has joined #css
07:52:01 [tantek]
tantek has joined #css
08:03:58 [SimonSapin]
SimonSapin has joined #css
09:01:48 [drublic]
drublic has joined #css
09:34:51 [nimbu]
nimbu has joined #css
09:58:12 [drublic]
drublic has joined #css
11:42:37 [myakura]
myakura has joined #css
11:57:26 [naitik_]
naitik_ has joined #css
12:24:41 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #css
12:42:05 [miketaylr]
miketaylr has joined #css
13:01:55 [glenn]
glenn has joined #css
13:06:16 [krit]
krit has joined #css
13:19:34 [danielfilho]
danielfilho has joined #css
13:54:07 [nimbu]
nimbu has joined #css
14:28:25 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
14:34:37 [wes]
wes has joined #css
14:56:51 [ksweeney]
ksweeney has joined #css
15:00:18 [ksweeney]
ksweeney has left #css
15:00:24 [kojiishi]
kojiishi has joined #css
15:05:35 [krit]
krit has joined #css
15:09:12 [Ms2ger]
Ms2ger has joined #css
15:28:42 [glazou]
glazou has joined #css
15:28:50 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #css
15:29:01 [glazou]
Zakim, this will be Style
15:29:02 [Zakim]
ok, glazou; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 31 minutes
15:29:11 [glazou]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:44:48 [alexmog_]
alexmog_ has joined #css
15:48:24 [florian_]
florian_ has joined #css
15:51:12 [jdaggett]
jdaggett has joined #css
15:55:06 [antonp]
antonp has joined #css
15:55:30 [florianr]
florianr has joined #css
15:56:01 [oyvind]
oyvind has joined #css
15:56:08 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
15:56:14 [Zakim]
+??P7
15:56:46 [florianr]
Zakim, I am ??P7.
15:56:47 [Zakim]
+florianr; got it
15:57:21 [Zakim]
+??P26
15:57:27 [glazou]
Zakim, ??P26 is me
15:57:31 [Zakim]
+glazou; got it
15:57:32 [Zakim]
+plinss
15:58:03 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
15:58:24 [Zakim]
+??P31
15:59:15 [Zakim]
+Brian_Leroux
15:59:16 [Zakim]
+??P36
15:59:35 [Zakim]
+stearns
15:59:37 [dbaron]
Zakim, ??P31 is dbaron
15:59:37 [Zakim]
+dbaron; got it
15:59:44 [arronei_]
zakim, microsoft is me
15:59:44 [Zakim]
+arronei_; got it
15:59:48 [Zakim]
+??P30
16:00:07 [glenn]
zakim, ??p30 is glenn
16:00:07 [Zakim]
+glenn; got it
16:00:10 [krit]
krit has joined #css
16:00:10 [Zakim]
+hober
16:00:25 [Zakim]
+??P43
16:00:30 [bradk]
bradk has joined #css
16:00:38 [jdaggett]
zakim, ??p43 is me
16:00:38 [Zakim]
+jdaggett; got it
16:00:41 [Zakim]
+antonp
16:00:43 [dstorey]
dstorey has joined #css
16:00:55 [Zakim]
+bradk
16:01:02 [Zakim]
+ +1.425.246.aaaa
16:01:15 [Zakim]
+SteveZ
16:01:16 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.832.aabb
16:01:35 [glazou]
Zakim, aaaa is alexmog
16:01:35 [Zakim]
+alexmog; got it
16:01:35 [alexmog_]
zalim, aaaa is me
16:01:43 [Zakim]
+??P11
16:01:47 [krit]
Zakim: aabb is me
16:01:50 [Zakim]
+Bert
16:03:00 [Zakim]
+??P61
16:03:03 [plinss]
zakim, ??p11 is fantasai
16:03:03 [Zakim]
+fantasai; got it
16:03:03 [JohnJansen]
JohnJansen has joined #CSS
16:03:09 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
16:03:21 [dstorey]
zakim, ??P61 is me
16:03:21 [Zakim]
+dstorey; got it
16:03:22 [JohnJansen]
Zakim, Microsoft has JohnJansen
16:03:23 [Zakim]
+JohnJansen; got it
16:03:47 [plinss]
http://www.w3.org/2006/tools/wiki/Zakim_Tips
16:04:13 [glazou]
you mean "Zaki, tips?" don't work ?
16:04:16 [Zakim]
+ +1.281.305.aacc
16:04:17 [glazou]
Zakim, tips?
16:04:19 [TabAtkins_]
zakim, aacc is me
16:04:21 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, glazou.
16:04:24 [Zakim]
+TabAtkins_; got it
16:04:43 [glazou]
Zakim, who is here?
16:04:43 [Zakim]
On the phone I see florianr, glazou, plinss, arronei_, dbaron, Brian_Leroux, ??P36, stearns, glenn (muted), hober, jdaggett, antonp, bradk, alexmog, SteveZ, +1.415.832.aabb,
16:04:47 [Zakim]
... fantasai, Bert, dstorey, [Microsoft], TabAtkins_
16:04:51 [Zakim]
[Microsoft] has JohnJansen
16:04:53 [Zakim]
On IRC I see JohnJansen, dstorey, bradk, krit, oyvind, florianr, antonp, jdaggett, alexmog_, Zakim, glazou, Ms2ger, kojiishi, Wes-, dbaron, danielfilho, glenn, miketaylr, shepazu,
16:05:00 [krit]
Zakim, aabb is me
16:05:01 [Zakim]
... myakura, drublic, SimonSapin, tantek, krijnh, SteveZ, arronei_, Liam, kennyluck, logbot, decadance, ed, isherman, RRSAgent, paul___irish, fantasai, stearns, TabAtkins_, hober,
16:05:03 [Zakim]
... gsnedders, CSSWG_LogBot, vhardy, sylvaing_away, plinss, alexmog, shans, pjrm, Hixie, Bert, trackbot
16:05:07 [Zakim]
+??P24
16:05:12 [Zakim]
+krit; got it
16:05:16 [kojiishi]
zakim, ??p24 is me
16:05:21 [Zakim]
+kojiishi; got it
16:05:32 [rbetts]
rbetts has joined #css
16:05:44 [glazou]
Zakim, ??P36 is rbetts
16:05:56 [Zakim]
+rbetts; got it
16:06:14 [antonp]
ScribeNick: antonp
16:06:32 [antonp]
glazou: Topic: extra items for today
16:07:18 [antonp]
glazou: item: long thread about tooltip, there's an author expectation about being able to design tooltips in CSS
16:07:34 [antonp]
... simple feature, has some issues but we should tackle it
16:07:45 [glazou]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2012AprJun/0099.html
16:07:57 [antonp]
glazou: Topic: add Alan Stearns as co-editor to Regions and Exclusions
16:08:08 [antonp]
glazou: No objections
16:08:14 [glazou]
http://www.w3.org/mid/585D0AE0-087B-4607-9121-C3CBC088E806@adobe.com
16:08:21 [antonp]
RESOLVED: add Alan as co-editor to those 2 specs
16:08:39 [antonp]
Topic: add Ryan as co-editor to device adaptations spec
16:08:45 [antonp]
glazou: No objections
16:08:50 [glazou]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2012AprJun/0120.html
16:08:53 [antonp]
RESOLVED: Ryan is now co-editor of that spec
16:09:14 [antonp]
Topic: Regions/Exclusions: request to publish new WD
16:09:33 [antonp]
glazou: 4 months since last WDs
16:09:50 [antonp]
dbaron: last time around we had a discussion about a note. Has it been revised as agreed
16:10:19 [antonp]
alan: I believe so,... but not sure which particular note you're referring to
16:10:55 [antonp]
alan: going through action items, bugzilla, mailing list: we're up to date, and notes exist in spec for everything being tracked as of today
16:11:18 [antonp]
glazou: other comments?
16:11:27 [antonp]
bert: request for notes:
16:11:33 [dbaron]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Dec/0411.html is the note I was thinking of
16:11:40 [glazou]
stearns: add me to ACK section of Exclusions?
16:11:48 [antonp]
... we should move out the things we /don't/ want
16:11:54 [antonp]
eg the idea of elements being a region
16:12:13 [antonp]
... need a note saying that regions won't becreated like that
16:12:19 [antonp]
??: that wasn't the resolution
16:12:26 [glazou]
s/??/stearns
16:12:32 [antonp]
... we never decided to disallow it; just discourage it
16:12:39 [antonp]
glazou: don't want to disallow either
16:12:47 [antonp]
bert: I want to disallow
16:13:02 [antonp]
bert: no redundant elements should exist in a web document
16:13:38 [antonp]
alan: we understand the issue, and want to find ways around creating elements, and even if there was an alternative in css to create wrappers, we still don't want to disallow
16:14:13 [antonp]
glazou: is a religious discussion! Even if valuable, it can be a comment to the new WD... it's not blocking a new WD
16:14:22 [antonp]
bert: but it's no longer a FPWD so want to act now
16:14:31 [antonp]
glazou: need a concensus, and I'm not hearing one
16:14:40 [glazou]
s/concensus/consensus
16:14:52 [antonp]
alan: I can add a bug to track, and a note to the spec
16:15:06 [antonp]
dbaron: in the case of exclusions, there wasn't even a consensus that we wanted to work on the thing
16:15:15 [antonp]
dbaron: that's why we wanted notes in the spec
16:15:26 [antonp]
dbaron: there were conditions to working on the spec, and those conditions weren't met
16:15:41 [dbaron]
s/working on/publishing/
16:15:44 [antonp]
alan: I'll look back at the conditions, and try to update the Exclusions draft
16:15:50 [antonp]
... with the missing notes
16:16:00 [antonp]
.. but I need to know exactly what needs addressing
16:16:01 [dbaron]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Dec/0411.html
16:16:29 [antonp]
??: can we say it's still under discussion?
16:16:43 [krit]
s/??/krit/
16:16:58 [antonp]
glazou: I'm not sure the assertion in dbaron's post is correct
16:17:07 [antonp]
florian: I agree with dbaron's note
16:17:28 [antonp]
alan: we want to clarify that Exclusions are not dependent on abspos elements
16:17:46 [antonp]
dbaron: OK it's not dependent on abspos, but practically that's how you use it
16:18:00 [antonp]
... not just a question of the examples in the spec; it's about the ways one would use it practically
16:18:23 [antonp]
alan: would you be ok with publishing a new WD of exclusions if there was a bugzilla item and a note in the spec referencing it?
16:18:43 [antonp]
dbaron: that's what we agreed to as a compromise last time, and it didn't happen
16:18:53 [antonp]
... I don't want to say yes conditionally; I want to see it don
16:19:00 [antonp]
alan: I'll work on it today
16:19:18 [antonp]
glazou: ok, that defers the discussion on exclusions. Go to email with it
16:19:25 [antonp]
... and now, Regions?
16:19:26 [dstorey1]
dstorey1 has joined #css
16:19:53 [antonp]
bert: @regions rule: there are alternatives
16:20:00 [antonp]
... pseudo-elements
16:20:16 [antonp]
... hierarchy notation could also avoid needing @-rules
16:20:30 [antonp]
bert: at last F2F somebody presented hierarchies
16:20:39 [antonp]
... they can be employed to avoid using an @-rule
16:20:52 [jdaggett]
note: tab presented about hierarchies...
16:20:59 [antonp]
bert: don't know if these alternatives are necessary tghe final answer, but think we should investigate alternatives
16:21:10 [antonp]
... would like a note mentioning at least the pseudos alternative
16:21:28 [antonp]
glazou: hierarchies wouldn't solve the problem, since it doesn't select boxes
16:21:41 [antonp]
fantasai: you'd need pseuod-elements to refer to the region
16:21:55 [antonp]
florianr: hierarchies can be used on top
16:22:01 [antonp]
glazou: yes, but the main thing is the pseudos
16:22:24 [antonp]
glazou: I prefer the @-rule; it's simpler, things are better located in the same place, less repetition
16:22:47 [antonp]
fantasai: hierarchies solves the same problem in general, so perhaps we should solve regions with the general solution
16:23:04 [antonp]
.... the problem about being able to group rules applies equally to regions and other selectors
16:23:23 [antonp]
glazou: hierarchies is a /very/ early draft; should we be relying on it so early?
16:23:34 [glazou]
Zakim, who is noisy?
16:23:41 [antonp]
alex: do we need to have an issue in the bug list about syntax?
16:23:44 [Zakim]
glazou, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: florianr (5%), glazou (29%), TabAtkins_ (47%)
16:24:06 [Bert]
@region ::first-line { Y {...} } is the same as Y::first-line {...}
16:24:11 [antonp]
glazou: bert, would you be happy with a note saying alternative to an @-rule is to use a pseudo?
16:24:20 [antonp]
bert: perhaps with more detail, but yes
16:24:30 [antonp]
glazou: conditional on the note, can we publish WD?
16:24:36 [antonp]
bert: concerned about use of elements
16:24:52 [antonp]
bert: I'm reluctant about current situation
16:25:15 [antonp]
alan: there's a link to page templates draft in the doc, and the draft has removed all language linking regions to elements
16:25:21 [ChrisL]
ChrisL has joined #css
16:25:29 [antonp]
... they're still there in the examples, but there's nothing about elements in the normative text
16:25:40 [antonp]
bert: yes, but the first example is exactly an element
16:25:44 [antonp]
glazou: it's only an example!
16:25:55 [antonp]
bert: people look at the examples when they look at specs
16:26:10 [antonp]
tab: examples still serve well as author guidelines; we should have best practice
16:26:25 [Zakim]
+ChrisL
16:26:28 [glazou]
hi ChrisL
16:26:29 [antonp]
glazou: we change our message on whether specs are tutorials or not every year...
16:27:04 [antonp]
alan: I just want to publish a WD on a 6-month old spec with the recent changes, and bury the old draft
16:27:14 [antonp]
glazou: I want to close on this
16:27:17 [ChrisL]
zakim, mute me
16:27:17 [Zakim]
ChrisL should now be muted
16:27:25 [antonp]
glazou: objections?
16:28:29 [antonp]
glazou: Actions: note about elements, to satisfy Bert; and a note about possibly replacing @-rules with a technique involving pseudo-elements and possibly hierarchies
16:28:34 [ChrisL]
+1 to publish
16:28:49 [antonp]
bert: subject to those conditions, I'm OK
16:28:57 [antonp]
RESOLVED: Publish new WD for regions
16:29:12 [antonp]
glazou: Alan to make changes to Exclusions to satisfy dbaron, and then we revisit
16:29:20 [glazou]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Apr/0499.html
16:29:29 [antonp]
TOPIC: Item 2, fonts, syntax of font feature settings
16:29:41 [dstorey]
dstorey has joined #css
16:30:07 [antonp]
jdaggett: tags were at least 4 chars in length, didn't mention about less than 4, or type of chars
16:30:17 [antonp]
jdaggett: change proposal is to tighten that up
16:30:20 [fantasai]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Apr/0548.html
16:30:21 [ChrisL]
q+ to ask about OT and Graphite
16:30:38 [antonp]
jdaggett: Jonathan Kew brought up concern that we're locking down on OpenType.
16:31:08 [antonp]
... but all along we've discussed including in F2F in March last year: OpenType is where it's at
16:31:47 [ChrisL]
q?
16:31:48 [antonp]
... don't think that by pinging this to the OpenType format we're not restricting ourselves
16:32:06 [antonp]
tab: ???
16:32:08 [SteveZ]
+1 for John's comments
16:32:12 [ChrisL]
q?
16:32:15 [bradk]
By the way, I think the examples in the regions specs are fine, because they are simple and focus exclusively on the concepts they are trying to illustrate, without forcing you to read and understand some other spec about pseudo-element generation. And JavaScript generation of regular elements such as DIVs is a reasonable way to use regions.
16:32:15 [antonp]
jdaggett: we're not limiting this to defined/registered tags
16:32:32 [antonp]
tab: does the UA need to understand it, or is it a straight path to the underlying system
16:32:36 [antonp]
jdaggett: it's a straight path
16:32:41 [ChrisL]
zakim, unmute me
16:32:41 [Zakim]
ChrisL should no longer be muted
16:32:43 [antonp]
tab: ok I withdraw my comment
16:32:51 [glazou]
Zakim, ack ChrisL
16:32:51 [Zakim]
ChrisL, you wanted to ask about OT and Graphite
16:32:52 [Zakim]
I see no one on the speaker queue
16:33:09 [antonp]
ChrisL: I think it's a good restriction, reminds me of the restriction on lnaguage tags, which were 2, and were then extensible to 3 chars etc
16:33:19 [fantasai]
q+
16:33:32 [antonp]
... by making it clear and specific, we actually allow ourselves to expand the possiblities later
16:33:44 [antonp]
... .... fucntional syntax proposed
16:34:14 [antonp]
... jdaggett: Graphite has problem that there's no structure; there are fonts which ship with ?? numeric value like 1001
16:34:23 [antonp]
... apps are forced to support this through font-specific UI
16:34:27 [antonp]
... not a good pattern
16:34:40 [antonp]
... restricting to 4-char tags isn't a big burden for fonts
16:34:56 [antonp]
... encouraging them to move to set of registered tags in opentype is good; brings consistency
16:35:06 [antonp]
ChrisL: you mean binary-encoded 1001?
16:35:08 [antonp]
jdaggett: yeah
16:35:19 [antonp]
... Right now we can't express that in this syntax at all
16:35:23 [glazou]
Zakim, ack fantasai
16:35:23 [Zakim]
I see no one on the speaker queue
16:35:27 [antonp]
... I don't think that's a bad thing
16:35:41 [antonp]
fantasai: in CSS we don't hard-code anything about particular formats we integrate with
16:35:48 [antonp]
... eg png images
16:35:58 [antonp]
... I don't see benefit of resitrcitions to authors here
16:36:04 [ChrisL]
elika, yes we do. we normatively reference opentype, no?
16:36:16 [antonp]
... prevents experimentation due to our syntax restrictions
16:36:29 [antonp]
... I see problems with this change. I'm against
16:36:46 [antonp]
jdaggett: theoritically yes, but practically there's no tech out there right now which has this problem
16:37:08 [antonp]
.. look at AAT as an aexample of something that might be different, but nothing's coming into existence
16:37:11 [ChrisL]
it like thoretically, we need link type="text/css" but in practice ....
16:37:27 [antonp]
... without syntax checking, there's no way of guiding authors along
16:37:49 [antonp]
... an author that's creating an implementation and experimenting with a new font format, is not a blocking thing
16:38:01 [antonp]
... want to make sure that real UAs do the right thing
16:38:17 [antonp]
... so fantasai's point is true theoretically but not in practice
16:38:34 [Zakim]
-bradk
16:38:35 [antonp]
ChrisL: in practice there's only CSS even tho in theory there are other stylesheet langs
16:39:03 [antonp]
ChrisL: we reference OpenType a lot, we've already tended towards it; that's what people are calling for right now and can use right now
16:39:03 [Bert]
(q+ to say that there is no "OpenType" in the name of the property
16:39:08 [Bert]
q+ to say that there is no "OpenType" in the name of the property
16:39:09 [Zakim]
+bradk
16:39:46 [antonp]
fantasai: We're not saying you can't use a different format, but if you're using other tech it makes sense for CSS to trigger its abilities without being restricted by our syntax
16:39:55 [dbaron]
I think it's the first time that that CSS value correctness (whether it's a parse error) depends on something that's inside the contents of a string, which feels a little weird to me
16:40:01 [antonp]
... we're preventing people from implementing new font engines without violating our spec
16:40:05 [antonp]
jdaggett: what you said is wrong
16:40:22 [kennyluck]
+1 to dbaron's comment
16:40:39 [ChrisL]
john is saying what i was trying to say. the high level things are font format agnostic. its only the low-level espaces that are opentype specific
16:40:39 [antonp]
... there's nothing in the spec that says you cant implement to another format; it's only the low-level syntax that you can't access
16:40:43 [SteveZ]
q+
16:40:51 [glazou]
Zakim, ack Bert
16:40:52 [Zakim]
Bert, you wanted to say that there is no "OpenType" in the name of the property
16:40:52 [Zakim]
I see SteveZ on the speaker queue
16:41:02 [antonp]
bert: I agree with fantasai, we shouldn't restrict to OpenType
16:41:05 [ChrisL]
we are not restricting "for ever"
16:41:33 [stearns]
and we're only restricting a tiny section of the overall functionality
16:41:33 [ChrisL]
nobody said 'for ever" except for bert
16:41:39 [antonp]
Tab: we can always issue updates... not restricting us forever
16:41:46 [glazou]
then SteveZ
16:42:01 [antonp]
dbaron: feels weird to make parse-time validity dependent on what's inside a string; no precedent
16:42:02 [glazou]
Zakim, ack SteveZ
16:42:10 [Zakim]
I see no one on the speaker queue
16:42:20 [ChrisL]
q+ to suggest a new type which is a subset of string
16:42:28 [fantasai]
Tab, I don't think the CSSWG should be required to issue updates to its syntax because some other layout team wants to use a font tech other than OpenType
16:42:33 [antonp]
szilles: Benefit for user is they get early checking of errors that could have strange effects if they ran through to the clients
16:42:47 [antonp]
szilles: it's good to catch things early
16:43:45 [antonp]
... Second point: This is a low-level feature, it's largely designed with OpenType in mind. jdaggett's point is that if there;s a different format then the syntax is inappropriate and the vendor could always create an experimental feature to deal with it
16:44:02 [antonp]
... it's not locking out; it's just recognizing that our particular syntax is OT-oriented
16:44:13 [antonp]
... there are reasons for orienting towards a particular format
16:44:42 [antonp]
jdaggett: We've talked about this before; in March F2F last year I said: wrap a functional notation around all of these tags, eg "ot-"
16:44:47 [ChrisL]
we talked about this several times before. but we keep revisiting with no real new information
16:44:55 [antonp]
... but it's redundant,
16:45:04 [antonp]
... underneath you're passing to OT anyway
16:45:05 [glazou]
Zakim:
16:45:09 [glazou]
Zakim, ack ChrisL
16:45:09 [Zakim]
ChrisL, you wanted to suggest a new type which is a subset of string
16:45:09 [fantasai]
ChrisL, we haven't. Not this specific issue.
16:45:10 [Zakim]
I see no one on the speaker queue
16:45:14 [antonp]
ChrisL: re dbaron's point about string checking
16:45:27 [antonp]
... Make a new type for 4-char ASCII string?
16:45:43 [antonp]
... Wouldn't impact implementations, only specs themselves
16:45:53 [antonp]
dbaron: I don't think that makes a difference
16:45:59 [antonp]
.... there's still value in it
16:46:17 [antonp]
plinss: ot- prefix or functional notation does satisfy the parsing thing that dbaron is mentioning
16:46:43 [antonp]
... If we have an OT-specific functional notation that leaves us room to move later, eg the 4-char restriction
16:46:51 [antonp]
jdaggett: theoretically yes, but in practice no
16:47:05 [antonp]
plinss: we need to be explicit whether this is OT-specific or generic
16:47:22 [antonp]
jdaggett: We don't need individual property names for different font technology; it's overkill
16:47:39 [antonp]
tab: reason we went with strings, .....something about escaping.....
16:47:50 [antonp]
.... ot- is easier to type than quote symbols
16:48:00 [antonp]
... automatically gets round the namespacing issue
16:48:09 [antonp]
jdaggett: we were encouraged to use strings
16:48:25 [antonp]
tab: unrestricted items prevent us from expanding, unless done very carefully
16:48:33 [antonp]
,... prefixes help avoid that difficulty
16:48:46 [antonp]
plinss: I slightly prefer the functional notation and solves the bare item problem
16:48:52 [nimbu]
nimbu has joined #css
16:48:54 [dbaron]
s/bare item/bare ident/
16:48:56 [antonp]
... I'm not arguing strongly for it; just throwing it out there
16:49:04 [antonp]
glazou: no consensus at the moment
16:49:12 [antonp]
jdaggett: every time we talk about this we go full circle
16:49:19 [antonp]
... we're wasting time on the telecon
16:49:26 [antonp]
... if you want to object, do it on the list!
16:49:42 [antonp]
<some light arguing>
16:50:01 [antonp]
glazou: let's move on
16:50:03 [ChrisL]
sigh.
16:50:14 [ChrisL]
I am in favour too, plus it is what is implemented
16:50:15 [antonp]
dbaron: I'm in favour of jdaggett's proposal
16:50:28 [glazou]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:50:28 [Zakim]
On the phone I see florianr, glazou, plinss, arronei_, dbaron, Brian_Leroux, rbetts, stearns, glenn (muted), hober, jdaggett, antonp, alexmog, SteveZ, krit, fantasai, Bert,
16:50:28 [antonp]
Straw poll!
16:50:31 [Zakim]
... dstorey, [Microsoft], TabAtkins_, kojiishi, ChrisL, bradk
16:50:31 [Zakim]
[Microsoft] has JohnJansen
16:50:36 [antonp]
florianr: abstain
16:50:41 [antonp]
glazou: for
16:50:50 [antonp]
plinss: for, but preference for a bit tighter
16:50:56 [antonp]
arron: abstain
16:51:00 [antonp]
dbaron: for
16:51:05 [antonp]
brian: abstain
16:51:09 [antonp]
ryan: abstain
16:51:13 [antonp]
alan: for
16:51:18 [glenn]
glenn abstain
16:51:22 [antonp]
glenn: abstain
16:51:25 [antonp]
hober: abstain:@
16:51:27 [antonp]
jdaggett: for
16:51:32 [antonp]
antonp: abstain
16:51:41 [antonp]
alex: abstain
16:51:46 [antonp]
szilles: for
16:51:51 [antonp]
derek: abstain
16:51:56 [antonp]
fantasai: against
16:52:00 [fantasai]
but I can live with it
16:52:01 [krit]
s/derek/krit/
16:52:10 [ChrisL]
s/against/against but can live with/
16:52:11 [antonp]
bert: against
16:52:15 [bradk]
(I was abstain)
16:52:22 [antonp]
dstorey: abstain
16:52:26 [antonp]
jjanson: abstain
16:52:29 [antonp]
tab: for
16:52:34 [antonp]
koji: abstain
16:52:37 [antonp]
ChrisL: for
16:52:57 [ChrisL]
zakim, count totals
16:52:57 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'count totals', ChrisL
16:53:16 [JohnJansen]
s/jjanson/JohnJansen
16:53:24 [jet]
jet has joined #CSS
16:53:36 [antonp]
ChrisL: if most people don't care; that means stay with current proposal
16:53:43 [JohnJansen]
s/jjanson/johnjansen
16:53:44 [antonp]
bert: I can live with it
16:53:52 [ChrisL]
yay
16:53:54 [antonp]
glazou: we can all live with it
16:53:57 [jdaggett]
thanks!
16:53:59 [antonp]
glenn: proposal is accepted
16:54:04 [ChrisL]
minuted resolution please
16:54:06 [antonp]
RESOLVED: proposal is accepted
16:54:21 [glazou]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2012AprJun/0096.html
16:54:27 [glazou]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Apr/0650.html
16:54:33 [antonp]
TOPIC: Publish new WD about writing modes
16:54:42 [antonp]
fantasai: I need to make more edits to address jdaggett's comments
16:55:00 [antonp]
... UTR50 (?) updated a few days ago, I need to update references
16:55:03 [Bert]
q+ to ask if we know anything about TR 50 schedule
16:55:12 [glazou]
Zakim, ack Bert
16:55:12 [Zakim]
Bert, you wanted to ask if we know anything about TR 50 schedule
16:55:13 [Zakim]
I see no one on the speaker queue
16:55:13 [antonp]
jdaggett: it's the set of three paragraphs and that's it
16:55:25 [antonp]
bert: is UTR-50 updated?
16:55:37 [antonp]
jdaggett: there's supposed to be a discussion at the Unicode meeting
16:55:43 [ChrisL]
s/TR 50/UTR-50/
16:55:50 [antonp]
bert: are there any predictions about the outcome of the meeting?
16:56:02 [antonp]
fantasai: people working on it are aligning
16:56:24 [antonp]
fantasai: our spec will be more stable because we'll reference the concept being described in the the other spec
16:56:38 [antonp]
... and even if the other spec changes, our reference will still remain correct
16:56:45 [Zakim]
-[Microsoft]
16:56:50 [antonp]
fantasai: we can resolve to publish pending jdaggett's approval of the edits?
16:57:18 [stearns]
probably no time to come back around to this, but the text dbaron wanted to see in the exclusions draft is already there, in issue 1
16:57:25 [antonp]
szilles: I send a request to clarify something about text-combine that I was unclear about
16:57:32 [antonp]
... Koji also had issues
16:57:48 [antonp]
fantasai: I'll make sure the issues are tracked
16:58:04 [antonp]
glazou: provided the changes are made, shall we release new WD? Objections?
16:58:13 [antonp]
RESOLVED: make changes and then publish new WD
16:58:58 [antonp]
Tab: I request that WD should review the DoC of values+units
16:59:09 [antonp]
fantasai: I will add additional info
16:59:13 [Zakim]
-krit
16:59:15 [antonp]
glazou: Bye everyone
16:59:17 [Zakim]
-florianr
16:59:18 [Zakim]
-alexmog
16:59:18 [Zakim]
-dbaron
16:59:19 [Zakim]
-arronei_
16:59:19 [Zakim]
-ChrisL
16:59:19 [Zakim]
-SteveZ
16:59:20 [Zakim]
-bradk
16:59:21 [Zakim]
-glazou
16:59:23 [Zakim]
-fantasai
16:59:25 [Zakim]
-hober
16:59:28 [Zakim]
-kojiishi
16:59:30 [Zakim]
-Bert
16:59:31 [Zakim]
-Brian_Leroux
16:59:33 [Zakim]
-dstorey
16:59:35 [Zakim]
-stearns
16:59:37 [Zakim]
-TabAtkins_
16:59:39 [Zakim]
-jdaggett
16:59:41 [Zakim]
-antonp
16:59:41 [antonp]
fantasai/glazou: do I have to do something to close the minuting?
16:59:43 [Zakim]
-plinss
16:59:48 [Zakim]
-glenn
17:00:03 [fantasai]
antonp: nope
17:00:06 [antonp]
cool
17:00:08 [fantasai]
RRSAgent: make minutes
17:00:08 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/04/25-css-minutes.html fantasai
17:00:13 [fantasai]
well, that makes some provisional minutes
17:00:19 [antonp]
nice!
17:00:21 [fantasai]
but the ones I send to the mailing list are formatted off raw logs
17:00:29 [antonp]
That's what I thought
17:00:34 [antonp]
Thanks!
17:00:36 [fantasai]
np
17:00:47 [antonp]
I hope the raw logs are ok!!
17:03:46 [glazou]
thanks for scribing antonp
17:03:59 [antonp]
np!
17:05:01 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, rbetts, in Style_CSS FP()12:00PM
17:05:02 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
17:05:02 [Zakim]
Attendees were florianr, glazou, plinss, Brian_Leroux, stearns, dbaron, arronei_, glenn, hober, jdaggett, antonp, bradk, +1.425.246.aaaa, SteveZ, +1.415.832.aabb, alexmog, Bert,
17:05:02 [Zakim]
... fantasai, dstorey, JohnJansen, +1.281.305.aacc, TabAtkins_, krit, kojiishi, rbetts, ChrisL
17:08:51 [oyvind]
oyvind has left #css
17:19:22 [antonp]
antonp has left #css
17:19:44 [antonp]
antonp has joined #css
17:20:05 [antonp]
NOTE: tantek was attending the telecon via IRC
17:20:08 [antonp]
antonp has left #css
17:43:07 [dstorey]
dstorey has joined #css
17:43:45 [dholbert]
dholbert has joined #css
17:45:46 [dholbert]
fantasai, question on the "Resolving Flexible Lengths" chunk, when you've got a minute
17:46:08 [dholbert]
( http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-flexbox/#resolve-flexible-lengths )
17:55:54 [dholbert]
alternately: TabAtkins_ ^
17:58:16 [SteveZ_]
SteveZ_ has joined #css
18:16:03 [myakura]
myakura has joined #css
18:20:25 [dholbert]
fantasai / TabAtkins_: (nevermind -- partly figured it out -- replying on www-style)
18:33:39 [jet]
jet has joined #CSS
19:01:04 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #css
19:07:33 [dholbert]
dholbert has left #css
19:19:20 [TabAtkin1_]
TabAtkin1_ has joined #css
19:43:47 [Liam]
fantasai: thanks (text alignment / justification) silly me for looking for text alignment in the alignment spec! :-)
19:44:04 [drublic]
drublic has joined #css
19:59:05 [dstorey]
dstorey has joined #css
20:53:45 [fantasai]
Liam: Probably should call it "box alignment" or something
20:54:08 [fantasai]
Liam: I'm open to name suggestions :) Just so long as they say something about alignment, so people know the CSS equivalent of the align attributes are there
20:54:39 [Liam]
boxalignment might work, yes
21:08:14 [miketayl_r]
miketayl_r has joined #css
21:16:31 [tantek]
tantek has joined #css
21:47:11 [fantasai]
TabAtkins: Do you have any concrete plans to draw up css4-images?
22:06:41 [jet]
jet has joined #CSS
22:56:39 [krit]
krit has joined #css
23:02:39 [tpod]
tpod has joined #css
23:42:16 [myakura]
myakura has joined #css
23:51:10 [jet]
jet has joined #CSS