15:16:48 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #css
15:16:48 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/30-css-irc
15:16:54 <glazou> Zakim, this wille be Style
15:16:54 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this wille be Style', glazou
15:17:03 <glazou> Zakim, this will be Style
15:17:03 <Zakim> ok, glazou; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 43 minutes
15:17:09 <glazou> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:27:15 <arno> arno has joined #css
15:40:30 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #css
15:45:04 <krit> krit has joined #css
15:54:02 <Zakim> Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
15:54:09 <Zakim> +fantasai
15:54:46 <Zakim> +??P35
15:54:53 <florianr> Zakim, I am ??P35
15:54:53 <Zakim> +florianr; got it
15:56:04 <Zakim> +plinss
15:56:47 <PhilCupp> PhilCupp has joined #css
15:57:20 <sylvaing> ChrisL2, :( sorry
15:57:29 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
15:57:30 <Zakim> +??P44
15:57:39 <sylvaing> Zakim, Microsoft has sylvaing
15:57:39 <Zakim> +sylvaing; got it
15:57:46 <rbetts> rbetts has joined #css
15:58:01 <sylvaing> Zakim, Microsoft almost completely has sylvaing
15:58:01 <Zakim> I don't understand you, sylvaing
15:58:33 <Zakim> + +1.339.524.9.aaaa
15:58:46 <ChrisL2> zakim, aaaa is me
15:58:58 <Zakim> +ChrisL2; got it
15:59:04 <Zakim> +hober
15:59:07 <ChrisL2> and zakim, you messed up the country code again
15:59:19 <smfr> smfr has joined #css
15:59:23 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
15:59:28 <Zakim> +??P49
15:59:45 <alexmog_> alexmog_ has joined #css
15:59:46 <glenn> zakim, ??p49 is me
15:59:46 <Zakim> +glenn; got it
15:59:50 <oyvind> oyvind has joined #css
15:59:54 <Zakim> +Brian_Leroux
16:00:00 <Zakim> -??P44
16:00:12 <Zakim> +smfr
16:00:18 <glenn> zakim, who's on the phone?
16:00:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see fantasai, florianr, plinss, [Microsoft], ChrisL2, hober, [Microsoft.a], glenn (muted), Brian_Leroux, smfr
16:00:20 <Zakim> [Microsoft] has sylvaing
16:00:25 <Zakim> +??P44
16:00:29 <Zakim> +dbaron
16:00:39 <rbetts> just joined the call as well
16:00:47 <PhilCupp> Zakim, Microsoft.a is me
16:00:47 <Zakim> +PhilCupp; got it
16:00:48 <dbaron> wow, Zakim is not laggy today
16:00:51 <Zakim> +??P57
16:01:40 <Zakim> + +1.425.246.aabb
16:01:53 <alexmog_> zakim, aabb is me
16:01:53 <Zakim> +alexmog_; got it
16:01:59 <glazou> not laggy but I am unable to join...
16:02:15 <nimbu> nimbu has joined #css
16:02:20 <Zakim> +TabAtkins_
16:02:32 <alexmog_> zakim, why don't you remember my cell phone number already?
16:02:35 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, alexmog_.
16:02:38 <Zakim> +??P69
16:02:43 <glazou> Zakim, ??P69 is me
16:02:43 <Zakim> +glazou; got it
16:02:49 <dbaron> Zakim, ??P44 is rbetts 
16:02:49 <Zakim> +rbetts; got it
16:02:52 <Zakim> +??P76
16:02:54 <dbaron> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:02:57 <Zakim> On the phone I see fantasai, florianr, plinss, [Microsoft], ChrisL2, hober, PhilCupp, glenn (muted), Brian_Leroux, smfr, rbetts, dbaron, ??P57, alexmog_, TabAtkins_, glazou, ??P76
16:03:01 <Zakim> [Microsoft] has sylvaing
16:03:12 <glazou> who is Brian Leroux ???
16:03:23 <Zakim> +Bert
16:03:40 <krit> Zakim, ??P76 is me
16:03:44 <Zakim> +krit; got it
16:03:52 <JohnJansen> JohnJansen has joined #css
16:04:16 <TabAtkins> ScribeNick: TabAtkins `
16:04:22 <TabAtkins> ScribeNick: TabAtkins
16:04:31 <TabAtkins> plinss: Any last minute agenda additions?
16:04:44 <TabAtkins> Topic: Fullscreen spec
16:04:51 <TabAtkins> plinss: Webapps wants to publish a FPWD.
16:05:00 <TabAtkins> plinss: This is a joint deliverable with CSS, so we need to sign off on it as well.
16:05:09 <TabAtkins> fantasai: There's a few minor things to fix up, but overall I think it's fine.
16:05:11 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
16:05:25 <TabAtkins> ChrisL2: I agree with some of the things that Daniel talked about, but think it's okay to publish.
16:05:26 <JohnJansen> Zakim, Microsoft has JohnJansen
16:05:27 <Zakim> +JohnJansen; got it
16:05:33 <glazou> http://www.w3.org/mid/4FC630E6.1050406@disruptive-innovations.com
16:05:40 <TabAtkins> ChrisL2: We should probably triage between things that need to be addressed before publihsing and what can wait until after.
16:05:54 <TabAtkins> glazou: Main comments are #2 and #4.
16:06:01 <TabAtkins> glazou: I think the sectiona bout ::backdrop is unclear.
16:06:01 <tantek> good morning
16:06:15 <TabAtkins> glazou: I think fantasai gave a good explanation of what it represents, but it needs a better expl in the spec.
16:06:25 <TabAtkins> glazou: Second thing is the definition of "layer". I think it's pretty unclear.
16:06:32 <TabAtkins> glazou: For example, I don't know what "Layer 10" is.
16:06:46 <TabAtkins> fantasai: It's referring to Appendix E, the painting order layer.
16:06:51 <fantasai> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/zindex.html#painting-order
16:06:58 <TabAtkins> glazou: Okay, so it needs refs and hyperlinks.  It's not understandable as it is.
16:07:20 <TabAtkins> glazou: provided these clarifications are added, I'm okay with the document being published.
16:07:45 <tantek> I can work with Anne to make the edits happen today
16:07:46 <TabAtkins> florianr: Daniel, I'm surprised you're not calling for the WHATWG ref to be fixed.
16:07:56 <Zakim> +SteveZ
16:07:58 <fantasai> tantek, see also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/1131.html
16:08:03 <TabAtkins> glazou: It's important, but it doesn't need to be fixed now, and it's outside the scope fo the CSSWG comments.
16:08:06 <ChrisL2> tantek, that is very helpful
16:08:11 <Zakim> -hober
16:08:13 <Zakim> +[Apple]
16:08:14 <TabAtkins> glazou: We'll make the comment and see if the consortium agrees later.
16:08:17 <Katie> Katie has joined #css
16:08:26 <hober> Zakim, Apple has me
16:08:26 <Zakim> +hober; got it
16:08:35 <Zakim> +??P11
16:08:46 <kojiishi> zakim, ??p11 is me
16:08:46 <Zakim> +kojiishi; got it
16:09:22 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.aa]
16:09:51 <Katie> Zakim, [Microsoft.aa] has me
16:09:52 <TabAtkins> [missing some minuting about WHATWG ref]
16:09:55 <Zakim> +Katie; got it
16:10:19 <fantasai> sylvaing: Is there any reason it needs to point to WHATWG version? If not, should point to W3C one.
16:10:41 <TabAtkins> TabAtkins: (doesn't see any reason to change the ref besides "We hate the WHATWG")
16:10:45 <tantek> (still haven't gotten past the install javac step in http://wiki.csswg.org/tools/hg/install )
16:10:52 <TabAtkins> 1. Update the ref to to W3C spec.
16:11:01 <sylvaing> I don't see any reason to link to the WHATWG except 'we hate the W3C' :)
16:11:06 <TabAtkins> 2. Update the text around ::backdrop to better explain what it's for.
16:11:19 <TabAtkins> 3. Ref/link the talk about "Layer 10" and similar.
16:11:27 <glazou> tantek: saw my email ?
16:11:31 <tantek> glazou - yes
16:11:36 <glazou> ok
16:11:38 <tantek> most of that makes sense to me
16:11:52 <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/1131.html
16:11:57 <TabAtkins> 4. Fix computation of the 'position' property ('center' doesn't exist yet)
16:12:21 <TabAtkins> ChrisL2: One more change - in the SotD, it needs to point to both WGs and say that it's expliciatly a joint product.
16:12:24 <tantek> the "Update the text around ::backdrop to better explain what it's for" is a bit vague
16:12:44 <tantek> and seem so to require another review / re-evaluation before proceeding 
16:12:46 <glazou> tantek: for the time being, nothing is said about what _it  is_
16:12:54 <glazou> tantek: just say what it represents 
16:13:11 <Zakim> -Bert
16:13:12 <tantek> would an additional 1-2 sentence description be sufficient?
16:13:13 <ChrisL2> +1 to publish with those edits
16:13:24 <TabAtkins> RESOLUTION: Support the publishing of Fullscreen provided the edits (in minutes) are made.
16:13:38 <ChrisL2> rrsagent, here
16:13:38 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2012/05/30-css-irc#T16-13-38
16:14:04 <glazou> what ChrisL2  said :)
16:14:11 <Zakim> +Bert
16:14:23 <TabAtkins> florianr: What is happening with the future of this spec? Do we just count on tantek remembering to bring it by the WG sometimes?
16:14:32 <ChrisL2> going forward we would expect to be more closely involved in creating the actual text
16:14:33 <Zakim> + +1.206.390.aacc
16:14:38 <TabAtkins> ChrisL2: I think we need closer involvement.
16:14:39 <stearns> zakim, aacc is me
16:14:39 <Zakim> +stearns; got it
16:14:40 <tantek> florianr - what do you mean by "bring it by the WG" ?
16:14:50 <TabAtkins> hober: How is this different than anything else?
16:14:54 <tantek> you can just follow it on mercurial right?
16:14:57 <glenn> i am also a member of both groups
16:15:05 <TabAtkins> glazou: I think it's not difficult for tantek to just bring things by sometimes.
16:15:07 <fantasai> tantek, I'm not going to watch your mecurial logs
16:15:20 <tantek> fantasai - not *my* logs - just the spec
16:15:21 <glazou> what fantasai said
16:15:30 <tantek> if you care about a particular spec, watch its mercurial
16:15:35 <glazou> tantek: no, you as editor, have responsibility to ping us
16:15:37 <tantek> no need to spam everyone with delta emails
16:15:40 <glazou> by _email_
16:15:43 <tantek> glazou , citation?
16:15:45 <fantasai> plinss: As editor, Tantek has responsibility to bring updates to the WG
16:15:50 <glazou> re. mercurial
16:16:08 <tantek> is that a request for a mercurial to email bot?
16:16:12 <fantasai> no
16:16:19 <tantek> I am not a bot
16:16:20 <glazou> no, that's request to email us personnally
16:16:25 <glazou> from you, not bots
16:16:26 <fantasai> when there is something to discuss or review
16:16:27 <tantek> denied
16:16:41 <tantek> I am not going to email mercurial diffs
16:16:47 <fantasai> nobody is asking you to do that
16:17:10 <TabAtkins> glazou: If tantek isn't going to update the WG occasionally as appropriate, I object to publishing.
16:17:19 <ChrisL2> sigh, talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory
16:17:21 <TabAtkins> plinss: We'll take this offline. We wont' resolve this with communicating over IRC.
16:17:38 <fantasai> ScribeNick: fantasai
16:17:48 <tantek> are there any technical objections?
16:17:53 <tantek> or only bureaucratic?
16:18:22 <fantasai> http://wiki.csswg.org/topics/rename-before-after
16:19:10 <glazou> +1
16:19:14 <TabAtkins> ScribeNick: tantek 
16:19:18 <TabAtkins> ScribeNick: TabAtkins 
16:19:28 <TabAtkins> fantasai: [discusses switching to head/foot instead of before/after]
16:19:31 <tantek> I'm sorry I forgot the cover sheet on my TPS report.
16:19:49 <TabAtkins> fantasai: So far we havent' released any actual syntax using before/after as keywords or properties.
16:19:54 <glenn> -0.9 on change to head/tail; don't believe before/after is confusing
16:19:57 <fantasai> fantasai summarizes issue
16:20:11 <tantek> ChrisL2 - I simply denied request for emailing HG diffs to the WG.
16:21:02 <glazou> tantek: just with ALL editors, we need to be kept posted when important changes/additions are made
16:21:06 <TabAtkins> alexmog_: [asks for clarification]
16:21:20 <TabAtkins> alexmog_: What makes this better?
16:21:26 <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/1065.html
16:21:40 <TabAtkins> TabAtkins: before/after has never been great, and ::before/::after is obviously confusing with it.
16:21:44 <Zakim> + +1.415.871.aadd
16:21:50 <tantek> Zakim, aadd is tantek
16:21:50 <Zakim> +tantek; got it
16:21:54 <sylvaing> +1 on the confusion with ::before/::after
16:21:56 <Rossen> Rossen has joined #css
16:22:28 <Zakim> -??P57
16:22:29 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.aaa]
16:22:38 <fantasai> szilles: is head/foot culturally sensitive?
16:22:42 <Rossen> Zakim Microsoft.aaa is me
16:22:49 <TabAtkins> fantasai: There's two questions.  We *must* have different keywords for the axises, for things like caption-side.  Then there's the question of whether the alignment proeprties should use those.
16:23:03 <tantek> glazou - I don't know how to evaluate what's "important" to individuals. from my perspective, "important" changes should/will trigger requests to publish an updated working draft, is that sufficient?
16:23:04 <fantasai> szilles: I think before/after is relatively clear
16:23:18 <glazou> tantek: no
16:23:26 <sylvaing> tantek, glazou: can you guys hold on please?
16:23:30 <fantasai> Tab: I have no experience with Japanese publishing, so don't know if document headings are on the top or the side
16:23:38 <Rossen> Zakim, [Microsoft.aaa] is me
16:23:38 <Zakim> +Rossen; got it
16:23:42 <glenn> agree with alex
16:23:48 <fantasai> Koji: Footnote appears on the left
16:24:08 <fantasai> fantasai: And a heading appears on the right side of a section
16:24:28 <ChrisL2> so it is consistent between horizontal and vertical
16:24:34 <TabAtkins> ScribeNick: fantasai 
16:24:38 <fantasai> alex: We haven't had time to think about this
16:25:14 <fantasai> alex: Regardless of what we decide here, my vote for Flexbox is to use start/end in both dimensions
16:25:28 <fantasai> plinss: You want Flexbox to use start/end even if everything else switch to head/foot
16:25:53 <fantasai> TabAtkins: Recall that this is not just for Flexbox, for the alignment properties that will be used for all layout models
16:26:40 <fantasai> discussion of Hamburg resolution to adopt box-alignment across layout models
16:26:40 <dbaron> dbaron: We didn't decide to use them for block yet.
16:26:59 <fantasai> Florian: I'm in favor of using the block-axis keywords in that axis, regardless of what they are
16:28:28 <fantasai> Florian: Don't have a strong opinion on which keywords to use, but prefer head/foot
16:28:48 <fantasai> some confusion over orthogonal flows
16:29:40 <fantasai> TabAtkins: We're only talking naming today, not new layout concepts
16:29:50 <fantasai> szilles: I think you're missing Bert's point.
16:29:59 <fantasai> szilles: Basically the coordinate system changes at the content edge
16:30:13 <fantasai> szilles: Outside the content edge, use the parent's coordinate system
16:30:21 <fantasai> szilles: inside the content edge, use the element's coordinate system
16:31:45 <fantasai> Bert: [describing some wording problems with logical terms]
16:31:46 <ChrisL2> before hyphen side
16:31:58 <Zakim> -ChrisL2
16:32:26 <fantasai> TabAtkins: So you're saying head/foot is easier to do
16:32:42 <fantasai> Bert: Should just use A/B/C/D to refer to sides  of the box
16:32:42 <Zakim> +ChrisL
16:33:22 <glenn> -1
16:33:26 <fantasai> plinss: Is anyone objecting to switching ot head/foot?
16:33:57 <sylvaing> is not hearing strong objections but is not hearing much of a consensus either
16:34:22 <fantasai> szilles: SVG uses text-before/text-after
16:34:23 <stearns> fwiw I like head/foot too
16:34:32 <fantasai> ChrisL2: SVG is happy to follow CSSWG
16:35:06 <fantasai> szilles: I can live with head/foot
16:35:32 <ChrisL2> left hand and right hand pages
16:35:32 <tantek> HTML has THEAD TBODY TFOOT
16:35:38 <fantasai> Florian: I might be wrong, but I think it's the first time we use body parts in a spec
16:35:44 <miketayl_r> miketayl_r has joined #css
16:35:59 <fantasai> sylvaing: As far as English goes, it's a decent choice, and I think it's much clearer.
16:36:15 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Switch before/after to head/foot
16:36:24 <fantasai> http://wiki.csswg.org/topics/start-end-before-after-align
16:37:16 <tantek> Florian, CSS 2.1 uses table-header-group, table-footer-group http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/tables.html#table-display
16:37:52 <glenn> would like different keywords for different axes
16:38:27 <fantasai> TabAtkins: My major objection to changing to 4 direction is that while it makes sense for grid/block, which are writing-mode-relative,
16:38:32 <fantasai> TabAtkins: For flexbox, this isn't true
16:38:40 <tantek> regarding spec audiences, please see the spec restyling in effort that fantasai, Vincent, and myself are working on : http://www.w3.org/wiki/Restyle#Audiences
16:39:05 <fantasai> TabAtkins: So IMO using 4D for this particular set of property pairs would be worse, and we should use start/end for both dimensions for these sets of properties
16:39:18 <fantasai> TabAtkins: In the actual spec I use main-end/cross-end etc.
16:39:21 <glenn> but i agree with Tab on this
16:39:33 <fantasai> TabAtkins: Properties use just start/end because I didn't need to be more specific than that.
16:39:52 <fantasai> [we're discussing the justify and align properties]
16:39:57 <glenn> can we use 2 keywords for flexbox, and 4 for grid/block?
16:40:12 <fantasai> Florian: So if we just have Flexbox and Grid, it's just a coin toss which spec we're going to make more confusing
16:40:19 <Zakim> -SteveZ
16:40:34 <fantasai> Florian: When it is the bock axis, it's going to be confusing that start/end is used in block axis
16:40:49 <tantek> Thanks sylvaing! To be clear - input is very much welcome.
16:41:09 <tantek> Feel free to even directly edit/add to the wiki page itself. If we disagree we'll edit it further :)
16:41:23 <tantek> and likely ask to discuss it here.
16:41:51 <tantek> If there are disputed priorities/opinions etc., we'll try to capture multiple viewpoints on the wiki.
16:42:08 <fantasai> fantasai: ... trying to establish start/end/head/foot as a flow-relative set of directions, equivalent to top/left/bottom/right as physical directions
16:42:14 <Zakim> +SteveZ
16:42:25 <fantasai> ...
16:42:55 <fantasai> Florian: These are logical dimensions, logical relative to what can depend on layout mode
16:43:48 <glenn> initial/final?
16:44:23 <fantasai> TabAtkins: Referring to start side as head would be confusing
16:44:33 <fantasai> fantasai: Wouldn't referring to head side as start side also be confusing?
16:44:45 <glenn> committitur/finem (latin)
16:45:42 <fantasai> Phil: So, say I set margin-head: 10px; to put margin on head side of a column flexbox, what do I set to bunch up the elements towards that side of the box?
16:45:52 <glenn> alpha/omega
16:45:56 <fantasai> TabAtkins: Regardless of what we decide here, it would be justify-content: start;
16:46:05 <glenn> ;)
16:46:26 <plinss> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:46:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see fantasai, florianr, plinss, [Microsoft], PhilCupp, glenn (muted), Brian_Leroux, smfr, rbetts, dbaron, alexmog_, TabAtkins_, glazou, krit, [Microsoft.a], [Apple],
16:46:29 <fantasai> Straw Poll
16:46:30 <Zakim> ... kojiishi, [Microsoft.aa], Bert, stearns, tantek, Rossen, ChrisL, SteveZ
16:46:30 <Zakim> [Apple] has hober
16:46:30 <Zakim> [Microsoft] has JohnJansen
16:46:30 <Zakim> [Microsoft.aa] has Katie
16:47:03 <fantasai> A) use start/end/head/foot as flow-relative (relative to flex-flow for flexboxes)
16:47:11 <fantasai> B) use start/end/start/end in both dimensions
16:47:40 <glenn> C) something else [TBD]
16:47:41 <fantasai> (flow-relative is writing-mode relative everywher eelse)
16:47:45 <fantasai> fantasai: A
16:47:49 <fantasai> Florian: A
16:47:51 <fantasai> plinss: A
16:47:57 <glenn> glenn: C
16:48:07 <fantasai> JohnJansen: abstain
16:48:07 <TabAtkins> (flow-realtive is *also* writing-mode relative on Flexbox for every other property)
16:48:08 <fantasai> Phil: abstain
16:48:36 <fantasai> smfr: abstain
16:48:44 <fantasai> ?: abstain
16:48:53 <stearns> s/?/rbetts
16:48:55 <rbetts> that was rbetts that abstained
16:48:56 <fantasai> dbaron: abstain, though maybe A, but abstain
16:49:01 <fantasai> alex: B
16:49:06 <fantasai> TabAtkins: B
16:49:13 <fantasai> glazou: A
16:49:20 <Liam> [Liam fears head/foot will be confusing with respect to running heads and footers, which are usually not writing-mode relative so B or C if my vote counts :-) ]
16:49:22 <sylvaing> abstains
16:49:23 <Katie> Katie: abstain
16:49:29 <ChrisL2> A
16:49:39 <tantek> make that abstain / delegate to editor preference
16:49:40 <fantasai> hober: abstain
16:50:08 <fantasai> szilles: B
16:50:16 <stearns> abstain
16:50:24 <Rossen> rossen: abstain
16:50:30 <kojiishi> kojiishi: B
16:50:30 <Bert> Bert: maybe B
16:50:40 <fantasai> tantek: abstain, unless consensus amongst editors
16:51:00 <Zakim> -SteveZ
16:51:08 <tantek> C = unicorns?
16:51:15 <fantasai> Options for C
16:51:24 <fantasai> ?
16:51:27 <glenn> by C I meant use something different for flow-relative
16:51:34 <rbetts> near/far?
16:51:57 <Rossen> Is C start/end/before/after
16:52:00 <ChrisL2> don't like the same terms to be used for both directions
16:52:13 <fantasai> Florian: C is to use same terms for both, but not to use the flow-relative directions
16:52:17 <glenn> I would vote A for grid/block, but don't like confusion that would result if start/end also used with flexbox
16:52:46 <fantasai> Rossen, no it's before/after/before/after
16:52:56 <fantasai> (or some other set of terms)
16:53:04 <fantasai> Rossen: So it's the same as B, except with different terms
16:53:06 <rbetts> if you don't use the same terms for both directions, then you'll have to update two properties in concert. i.e.: if I change the flex orientation then I'd have to update the justify and align keywords, which seems unnecessary
16:53:39 <fantasai> no, rbetts, the keywords are tied to the property, not to the effective dimension
16:53:51 <rbetts> ah, ok.
16:53:57 <fantasai> plinss: Are people happy to use same terms in both dimensions?
16:54:07 <rbetts> (and sorry - that should have been phrased as a question, fantasia)
16:54:30 <fantasai> fantasai: yes
16:54:31 <Zakim> -[Microsoft.a]
16:54:35 <dbaron> I'll switch from abstain to A. :-)
16:54:57 <fantasai> Phil: I had resolution that we'd use fantasai's new alignment properties for Flexbox
16:55:13 <fantasai> Phil: But her spec uses different terms in different dimensions
16:55:42 <fantasai> TabAtkins: This is about that spec
16:56:32 <fantasai> Florian: Because we're defining start/end to be in the inline direction, I'm happy for either using head/foot in the other dimension, or using a different set of keywords in both dimensions
16:57:36 <fantasai> fantasai: so where are we at?
16:58:21 <dbaron> dbaron: I don't think we should have three sets of keywords because people will have yet another set to confuse.
16:58:21 <sylvaing> let's stick a $ sign in front!
16:59:04 <tantek> +1 to reducing namesmithing/thrashing/bikeshedding
16:59:21 <fantasai> TabAtkins: I'm going to object to naming changes if we don't resolve this soon
16:59:37 <sylvaing> +100. bikeshedding at last call is an anti-pattern
17:00:30 <fantasai> Phil: Can we just prefix the flex alignment properties and fix this later?
17:00:38 <Ms2ger> That's an awful idea
17:00:47 <fantasai> fantasai: I don't think that is a good way of fixing the impasse
17:01:00 <fantasai> sylvaing: I don't like deciding on the API and then renaming the whole thing, not an efficient way to work
17:01:11 <tantek> "rename all the things!" (or was that not to…)
17:01:12 <fantasai> sylvaing: But if we can just settle it now, let's do it. We can't keep going like this.
17:01:29 <fantasai> florian: So we have all the preferences, but does anyone object to A or B or C?
17:01:41 <fantasai> apparently not
17:01:44 <fantasai> dbaron: I might object to C
17:02:35 <dbaron> The goal is that this stuff apply to more than just flexbox.
17:02:46 <Zakim> -alexmog_
17:03:19 <fantasai> discussion of having fantasai and Tab work it out
17:03:19 <Zakim> -[Microsoft.aa]
17:03:30 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Tab and fantasai to decide on this issue
17:03:31 <glenn> i'm ok with fanasai/tab reaching mutual agreement
17:03:32 <Zakim> -ChrisL
17:03:35 <Zakim> -smfr
17:03:36 <Zakim> -Rossen
17:03:36 <Zakim> -[Apple]
17:03:36 <Zakim> -TabAtkins_
17:03:38 <Zakim> -dbaron
17:03:41 <Zakim> -Brian_Leroux
17:03:43 <Zakim> -glazou
17:03:44 <Zakim> -PhilCupp
17:03:44 <Zakim> -kojiishi
17:03:45 <rbetts> (as an aside, I think I might be Brian_Leroux, as I'm calling from the former Nitobi office)
17:03:50 <Zakim> -fantasai
17:03:54 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
17:03:54 <Zakim> -krit
17:03:56 <Zakim> -Bert
17:03:57 <Zakim> -florianr
17:04:00 <Zakim> -glenn
17:04:00 <glazou> rbetts: no you were listed by Zakim
17:04:10 <Zakim> -stearns
17:04:12 <Zakim> -plinss
17:04:16 <glazou> or maybe
17:04:18 <glazou> :)
17:04:41 <rbetts> yeah. haha. Zakim did a -Brian_Leroux right as I hung up. 
17:04:50 <Zakim> -rbetts
17:05:28 <glazou> rbetts: zakim saw a -rbetts too
17:06:43 <rbetts> the mystery of Brian_Leroux remains.
17:06:48 <glazou> tada !
17:08:23 <Zakim> -tantek
17:08:25 <Zakim> Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
17:08:25 <Zakim> Attendees were fantasai, florianr, plinss, sylvaing, +1.339.524.9.aaaa, ChrisL2, hober, [Microsoft], glenn, Brian_Leroux, smfr, dbaron, PhilCupp, +1.425.246.aabb, alexmog_,
17:08:25 <Zakim> ... TabAtkins_, glazou, rbetts, Bert, krit, JohnJansen, SteveZ, kojiishi, Katie, +1.206.390.aacc, stearns, +1.415.871.aadd, tantek, Rossen, ChrisL
17:09:48 <tantek> Zakim, who is Brian_Leroux? 
17:09:48 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, tantek.
17:09:54 <tantek> Zakim, who is John Galt?
17:09:54 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, tantek.
17:10:13 <fantasai> :)
17:10:19 <tantek> Zakim, who is Zakim?
17:10:19 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, tantek.
17:10:23 <tantek> Zakim, who are you?
17:10:23 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, tantek.
17:10:33 <tantek> Zakim, what are you?
17:10:33 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, tantek.
17:15:52 <oyvind> oyvind has left #css
17:17:07 <tantek> ok I believe I have successfully installed hg, and have updated http://wiki.csswg.org/tools/hg/install accordingly with how to verify as such (thanks to plinss).
17:17:50 <plinss> tantek: and just in time for the new version that's going to be released on Friday :-)
17:18:20 <tantek> yes
17:18:25 <tantek> new version of what?
17:18:32 <Ms2ger> HG
17:18:36 <Ms2ger> Presumably
17:20:11 <plinss> yes, hg. Actually they release a new version the first of every month, June 1 should be v2.2.2, just a maintenance release
17:20:33 <tantek> plinss, I've made the update instructions a separate section as well: http://wiki.csswg.org/tools/hg/install#mercurial-updates
17:31:54 <tantek> florianr - everything I've added I've either gotten stuck on or had no clue if the right thing was happening or not (the usual situation in command line interfaces)
17:32:12 <tantek> (enter some command, get back a dump of unintelligible crap, wonder if it did what you meant it to)
17:32:44 <florianr> I don't doubt it
17:33:14 <florianr> I am happy with the command line, but that's clearly not a universal preference
17:34:11 <tantek> I've forgotten too many command line commands/outputs to bother to learn any more
17:37:24 <tantek> Ç
17:39:08 <plinss> tantek: yes it does, there's a bug with BOMs though, so don't use one
17:40:00 <tantek> ok
17:43:49 <jet> jet has joined #CSS
17:49:40 <krit1> krit1 has joined #css
17:53:22 <jet> jet has joined #CSS
17:58:20 <miketaylr> miketaylr has joined #css
18:00:46 <tantek> so about 106 MB for the CSS test hg
18:00:55 <tantek> I guess that's not too bad
18:13:23 <tantek> btw - to get notified of when Fullscreen is updated: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/atom-log
18:13:33 <tantek> (in the feed reader of your choice)
18:23:42 <fantasai> tantek: people don't want to follow every edit, they just want to be told when major changes are made and they need to re-review the document
18:23:57 <tantek> fantasai "major changes" is in the eye of the beholder
18:24:09 <fantasai> tantek: indeed, so batch them up and say "I made a bunch of changes, please review this"
18:24:11 <tantek> there aren't lots of edits being made to fullscreen
18:24:21 <tantek> so anyone who actually cares about fullscreen doesn't have much to follow
18:24:25 <fantasai> tantek: yes, but if that's the attitude from every spec writer, nobody can keep up
18:24:34 <tantek> that's right, nobody can keep up
18:24:41 <tantek> that happened about mid to late 2000s
18:24:44 <fantasai> tantek: so your job is to create the digest
18:24:45 <tantek> and is much worse now
18:24:59 <fantasai> tantek: so that people can keep up without having to track all your typo fixes
18:25:04 <tantek> digest = http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/atom-log
18:25:14 <tantek> typo fixes yeah
18:25:16 <tantek> that's annoying
18:25:23 <tantek> MediaWiki has the notion of minor edits
18:25:28 <tantek> and you can hide minor edits from a history
18:26:13 <tantek> e.g. "m:"
18:26:20 <fantasai> tantek: all you have to do is ping the WG every once in awhile and say I've made a bunch of changes, please review. It's your job to figure out what interval is appropriate for chunking
18:26:56 <tantek> those two frequencies of stability seem sufficient
18:27:10 <tantek> either people are interested in every change (of which there aren't many, not that often)
18:27:10 <fantasai> that's probably fine, as long as you post a new WD reasonably frequently :)
18:27:24 <tantek> or if they only "major" changes, then just wait for the editor to request an updated public WD
18:27:52 <tantek> this other rigamarole about some made up notion of "major changes" notifications is just a waste of everyone's time.
18:28:19 <tantek> fantasai - what's a good WD heartbeat frequency in your opinion?
18:28:27 <tantek> (actually curious - I don't have an answer to that)
18:28:29 <fantasai> depends on how frequently the draft is updated, really
18:28:44 <fantasai> I'd say anywhere from one month to 6 months
18:28:52 <tantek> no, heartbeat means a minimum update frequency
18:29:00 <tantek> has nothing to do with "how frequently the draft is updated"
18:29:21 <fantasai> well, if the draft hasn't been updated at all, there's no point to publish :)
18:29:23 <tantek> I don't think we have on in the CSSWG
18:29:29 <tantek> that's not true
18:29:43 <tantek> updating the date makes it clear that nothing has changed
18:29:54 <fantasai> ah, no, it makes you wonder what's changed since it's been updated now
18:29:59 <tantek> otherwise if the date on a public WD is old, people assume it's just obsolete
18:30:04 <fantasai> ah
18:30:15 <tantek> and then go look at the editor's draft (if they weren't already)
18:30:26 <tantek> and if the date on an editor's draft is old, people assume it's abandoned technology
18:30:27 <jet> jet has joined #CSS
18:30:51 <fantasai> wrt abandonment, I don't think you run into that until the 1 year mark
18:31:06 <fantasai> wrt up-to-date-ness, you'd need more frequent than that
18:31:12 <fantasai> I think the process recommends every 3 months
18:31:36 <fantasai> which is probably fine as a baseline, adjust up or down depending on level of activity on that module
18:32:23 <fantasai> Selectors L4 is on a very slow cycle because it's not very actively edited and hasn't been getting much feedback that needs handling
18:32:35 <fantasai> Flexbox probably should be getting updated every 3 - 6 weeks at the current rate
18:33:24 <fantasai> Wrt Text, probably 3-month cycle is roughly on-target
18:33:53 <fantasai> and then decide whether to send it to LC
18:38:02 <tantek> a 3 month heartbeat seems reasonable.
18:38:11 <tantek> I could see groups syncing heartbeat drafts to just after a f2f
18:38:18 <tantek> since those typically result in a flurry of edits
18:38:31 <tantek> and public WDs are primarily for folks *outside* the WG itself
18:39:06 <tantek> so for CSSWG we could decide on a heartbeat annual schedule for example that roughly corresponds to our f2f meetings
18:39:34 <tantek> e.g. March/June/September/November (after #tpac)
18:44:09 <miketaylr> miketaylr has joined #css
18:56:20 <fantasai> the one-off discussions about publishing are generally about 2-4 minutes long
18:56:28 <fantasai> except when they happen to also be review dicussions
18:57:11 <fantasai> one of the primary functions of those discussions is as a forcing function for getting those reviews out
18:57:39 <drublic> drublic has joined #css
18:57:46 <fantasai> tantek: publishing after F2F edits are complete seems like a good idea in general though
18:57:55 <sylvaing> that does make sense
18:58:19 <tantek> I guess I'd rather have the heartbeats as a forcing function
18:58:25 <tantek> they're more predictable
18:58:37 <fantasai> having them coincide wouldn't be a good idea though :)
18:58:47 <tantek> and developing a rhythm of publishing updates would be a good thing
18:58:53 <fantasai> the heartbeat imo should be a forcing function on the editor
18:59:07 <fantasai> to get things together and request a draft
18:59:09 <tantek> fantasai - why? the heartbeats in HTMLWG have been find
18:59:10 <tantek> fine
18:59:28 <tantek> fantasai - the heartbeat *relieves* the editor of requesting a draft
18:59:34 <tantek> the draft request automatically happens
18:59:41 <tantek> and anyone can object of course
18:59:51 <tantek> but it actually makes *less* work for the editor
18:59:58 <tantek> the default path is, updates get published
19:00:04 <tantek> no need for extra bureaucracy
19:00:27 <sylvaing> yeah i'd rather go to a model where you have to actively stop publishing by getting consensus on the need for it
19:00:35 <tantek> sylvaing +++++
19:01:37 <fantasai> given the editor's supposed to collect a list of changes and validate/link-check the draft, I think you can't quite have the process be that automatic
19:01:59 <sylvaing> unless the editor documents changes as he/she makes them?
19:02:03 <fantasai> the editor still has to do some work, it can't be a cron job
19:02:24 <fantasai> sylvaing: yep, that's a good practice, but not always followed :)
19:02:34 <sylvaing> ok so we need a forcing function for that to happen
19:03:20 <fantasai> currently it's the publication process
19:03:53 <fantasai> it's a checklist on the to-do list for that
19:04:06 <fantasai> s/checklist/item/ s/to-do listchecklist/
19:04:13 <tantek> fantasai - all those things can be semi-automatically be checked, and if they fail, server as objections to publish
19:04:23 <tantek> there doesn't need to be a separate process for them
19:04:43 <tantek> in other news
19:07:46 <sylvaing> seriously, i enjoy writing raw HTML as much as the next guy but actually authoring a spec in raw HTML is a pathetic waste of our collective time
19:08:06 <fantasai> tantek: right, and until you write that script, someone needs to do that manually. At the moment, it's the responsibility of the editor.
19:08:19 <sylvaing> SCRIPT ALL THE THINGS
19:08:32 <Ms2ger> What's the alternative, sylvaing?
19:08:49 <nimbu> gist.github.com
19:08:57 <drublic> drublic has joined #css
19:10:25 <tantek> fantasai - pretty sure regardless of what the editor does / does not do, team contact checks it before asking for publication
19:10:30 <tantek> so no need to write a script
19:10:54 <tantek> if the editor doesn't make sure those checks pass, then the checks fail by the team contact, serves as an objection to publish, and the heartbeat fails
19:10:56 <tantek> no problem
19:11:12 <tantek> and we just let community pressure take over
19:11:23 <tantek> when some specs appear to have heartbeats no problem, and others don't
19:11:29 <sylvaing> the WG's home page could reflect the heartbeat status
19:11:38 <sylvaing> of each spec
19:11:49 <tantek> it indicates a need for more/better editorship (myself included in that challenge of course)
19:11:55 <tantek> sylvaing yes
19:12:12 <fantasai> Ah, the WG's home page
19:12:12 <sylvaing> same here. falling way behind on css3-animations again and hating it
19:12:26 <fantasai> such a missed opportunity
19:12:32 <sylvaing> sigh
19:13:01 <nimbu> hahahah
19:13:06 <nimbu> :)))
19:13:28 <Zakim> Zakim has left #css
19:13:50 <sylvaing> sometimes I feel like there is some kind of secret charter for all WGs: "Never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity"
19:14:13 <nimbu> :'(
19:15:39 <fantasai> sylvaing: the WG homepage isn't in the WG charter
19:16:11 <sylvaing> i can't even tell if that's a good thing or a bad thing.... 
19:16:20 <fantasai> sylvaing: I know this, because it's why the WG has no authority to change it
19:16:29 <sylvaing> oh man, really?
19:16:31 <fantasai> yep
19:16:45 <sylvaing> well, that's fucking awesome
19:16:51 <sylvaing> if you'll pardon my french
19:16:53 <sylvaing> so to speak
19:16:57 <fantasai> lol
19:19:37 <TabAtkins> sylvaing: I don't understand.  The "HTML" part of spec editting is extremely tiny.  There's no complicated decisions or hard markup.  All the styling is taken out of your hands, too.
19:20:09 <TabAtkins> You just... write text.  And then occasionally use an <i> to mark up a term, or an <a> to link somewhere.
19:20:14 <sylvaing> I don't need or want markup in my face when I'm just writing prose
19:20:24 <sylvaing> doesn't matter if its email or a spec
19:20:46 <TabAtkins> Okay.  I guess we have different thresholds for this.  The amount of markup in my specs is drastically lower than in any other pages I write.
19:20:49 <sylvaing> and if most of the markup is the same and obeys a template I'd like to spend my time not generating it by hand
19:21:03 <sylvaing> well yeah, you do use a lot of words. I guess that helps :)
19:21:15 <TabAtkins> If you're writing a lot of formulaic markup that could be automated, you're probably doing it wrong.
19:21:25 <Ms2ger> *right
19:21:35 <sylvaing> bingo
19:21:35 <Ms2ger> As in, you've got enough cross-references
19:21:38 <TabAtkins> By that I mean, something is wrong with the process you're using.  Because I write just about the minimum amount of markup possible.
19:21:54 <Ms2ger> CSS specs always seem to lack those
19:21:55 <TabAtkins> Using Markdown would reduce my work a tiny bit more, but that's it.
19:22:11 <sylvaing> a spec-oriented markdown syntax would be great
19:22:22 <sylvaing> I don't see why I should even know what markup to use for a propdef table
19:22:34 <sylvaing> hell I don't see why I *need* to know what markup is used at all
19:22:37 <fantasai> heh, well you have to use *something*
19:22:46 <fantasai> if it's a bunch of ascii or a bunch of HTML tags 
19:22:51 <fantasai> you have to use *something* for a prpdef table
19:22:54 <sylvaing> sure.
19:23:03 <fantasai> might as well be HTML
19:23:04 <TabAtkins> I don't see a strong difference between the minimum propdef table and "{prop: 'foo', grammar: 'bar | baz', ...}"
19:23:08 <fantasai> ouch
19:23:11 <sylvaing> lol
19:23:23 <fantasai> sooo many quote marks.... noooo
19:23:35 <TabAtkins> That was just for nesting in the chat.
19:23:39 <fantasai> sylvaing: I always copy/paste the propdeft tables anyway
19:24:10 <fantasai> and if it were in Markdown or whatever, I'd still copy-paste them!
19:24:38 <sylvaing> and in 20 years we'll still be copy-pasting shit
19:24:44 <sylvaing> because copy-pasting is awesome
19:24:49 <sylvaing> COPY-PASTE ALL THE THINGS
19:25:05 <TabAtkins> You weigh the benefits of automating versus the time spent doing it.
19:25:40 <sylvaing> that comparison entirely depends on the timeframe one takes into consideration
19:26:05 <TabAtkins> Oh wow, you've got *all kinds* of indentation inconsistency.
19:26:12 <TabAtkins> No wonder it's all confusing.
19:26:28 <TabAtkins> Oh gosh, and those propdef tables.  SO LONG.
19:26:42 <TabAtkins> Okay, so I understand why you hate writing the spec, Sylvain.
19:26:52 <sylvaing> The time spent dealing with this manual crud across all the WGs over the past decade is probably ridiculous
19:27:03 <fantasai> yes, just copy TabAtkins' coding style, and it'll all be better :D
19:27:21 <sylvaing> sounds like I should look at flexbox
19:27:24 <fantasai> :DD
19:27:39 <TabAtkins> sylvaing: Mind if I go and just reformat the source to our conventions?  It's *way* easier to read and write.
19:28:11 <sylvaing> mind? I was about to bribe you to do it
19:28:17 <TabAtkins> Okay. Care about tabs vs spaces?
19:28:29 <sylvaing> that sounds like a trick question....
19:28:41 <TabAtkins> I'll follow whichever you prefer, if you have a strong feeling.
19:28:44 <TabAtkins> Otherwise I'm using tabs.
19:28:58 <sylvaing> i use spaces but was never religious about it. i can switch.
19:29:04 <TabAtkins> Okay, gimme an hour.
19:29:07 <fantasai> sylvaing: read http://rhodesmill.org/brandon/2012/one-sentence-per-line/ while Tab reformats it for you
19:29:17 <sylvaing> tab uses tabs
19:29:22 <fantasai> (of course!)
19:29:24 <sylvaing> (letting that sink in)
19:29:30 <jet> jet has left #CSS
19:29:30 <sylvaing> it's tabs all the way down
19:29:44 <jet> jet has joined #CSS
19:30:01 <fantasai> sylvaing: since Tab is reformatting with tabs for you...
19:30:09 <fantasai> sylvaing: make sure you understand the difference between indentation and alignment
19:30:22 <fantasai> sylvaing: indentation is with tabs, but alignment is always with spaces
19:30:49 <TabAtkins> You rarely need to align in a spec, though.
19:31:02 <TabAtkins> When you do (in a <pre>), you should be up against the first column anyway, so it's moot.
19:31:10 <TabAtkins> sylvaing: Of course!
19:31:41 <fantasai> TabAtkins: I'll sometimes use alignment in data tables
19:31:54 <sylvaing> so you almost completely use tabs :)
19:32:05 <fantasai> yeah
19:32:58 <sylvaing> man, how come i've never heard of semantic linefeeds
19:33:19 <TabAtkins> fantasai: Ah yeah, true.
19:35:16 <sylvaing> just realizing I've only ever looked at specs initially created by Apple
19:35:35 <Ms2ger> My condolences
19:35:53 <sylvaing> maybe they use Pages. Or iBooks Author.
19:36:47 <Ms2ger> OTOH, the worst markup in a CSS spec I ever saw was by Microsoft employees :)
19:37:49 <TabAtkins> sylvaing: Ooh, another thing wrong with what you were doing that made it extra-painful - you were manually putting in things like <code class='property'>, when the proprocessor does that for you if you just use single quotes.
19:37:58 <Ms2ger> (http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-tables-algorithms/Overview.src.htm)
19:38:51 <sylvaing> now that, I didn't know
19:39:25 <Ms2ger> There's some documentation somewhere on a Member-only page
19:39:49 <TabAtkins> fantasai: I forget what our convention is for marking up @-rules.
19:40:34 <tantek> fantasai - re: CSS home page missed opportunity
19:40:46 <tantek> feel free to improve upon http://w3.org/wiki/CSS
19:41:11 <tantek> sylvaing - agreed about preference to just edit on a wiki with less markup
19:41:26 <tantek> better than today would be:
19:41:43 <tantek> edit specs on the W3C wiki, submit W3C wiki URL for the spec to the pre-processor
19:42:23 <TabAtkins> You have an irrational attachment to wikis. ^_^
19:42:24 <tantek> given that we can put class names in wiki pages, we might be able to make that work with a bit of wiki-template work
19:42:44 <tantek> TabAtkins - less markup = more readable/editable - that's perfectly rational
19:42:57 <tantek> also, MediaWiki lets you mark edits as "minor", cvs/hg/git do not.
19:43:12 <tantek> that way you can look at all non-minor edits in a history view
19:43:25 <TabAtkins> tantek: Done well, spec markup is very nearly as minimal as wiki markup, except that it's HTML and more familiar. ^_^
19:43:28 <tantek> and ignore typo edits - a use-case requested by fantasai
19:43:39 <TabAtkins> Minor edits can be done by a better atom feed and a convention.
19:43:53 <tantek> TabAtkins - you speak of theory "Done well". show me A/B and we can discuss.
19:43:53 <TabAtkins> Our atom feed right now is horrible for CSS, unfortunately.
19:43:59 <sylvaing> tantek, yes. though tab's markup is very clear I still find WYSIWYG or something close to it ideal
19:44:03 <Ms2ger> tantek, A: http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker
19:44:26 <Ms2ger> sylvaing, point-'n'-click? :)
19:44:35 <tantek> Ms2ger - how is that spec markup or wiki markup? 
19:45:06 <Ms2ger> tantek, that's for the "ignore typo edits" you were looking for
19:45:19 <tantek> Ms2ger - how do you specify editorial changes in hg?
19:45:30 <tantek> what is triggering that tool to make a distinction?
19:45:40 <sylvaing> ms2ger, i like it when you sound all 1999
19:46:18 <Ms2ger> tantek, a convention
19:46:35 <tantek> Ms2ger URL to documentation of that convention?
19:46:58 <Ms2ger> Maybe somewhere in the web-apps-tracker source
19:47:13 <Ms2ger> It's only Hixie who needs to use it in this case, after all
19:47:23 <tantek> anyway - when you find it, let us know, will happily re-use (rather than reinvent)
19:47:36 <Ms2ger> "[e]" at the start of the commit message
19:47:45 <tantek> good enough for me
19:48:49 <sylvaing> it's not jus the source, i find the content of flexbox to be pretty good these days
19:49:28 <sylvaing> though example 4 puzzled me
19:49:33 <Ms2ger> sylvaing, no, seriously, having to use my mouse is what I find most annoying about wysiwyg tools
19:50:04 <TabAtkins> sylvaing: Send me an email reminding me about it, I'll see if I can edit it to be clearer.
19:50:15 <sylvaing> ms2ger, WYSIWYG does not imply or require a mouse though the correlation is unfortunately pretty high
19:51:18 <sylvaing> tab, the example is clear. it's just that the use case suggests each tab comes to the front when clicked. right after saying flex-order has no effect on z-index it was a bit confusing
19:51:43 <sylvaing> i.e. good use-case but muddles the msg. will email.
19:52:07 <Ms2ger> You're right about requiring, of course, but I'd like to see a wysiwyg editor that doesn't make me use my mouse :)
19:52:50 <Ms2ger> Also, my markup is eccentric enough that I'd need a specialized wysiwyg editor, really
20:03:59 <TabAtkins> sylvaing: In http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-animations/#list-matching , do you really mean "should", or is that an accidental use of the word?
20:04:56 <Ms2ger> TabAtkins, are you expecting correct use of RFC2119 in CSS specs? :)
20:05:07 <sylvaing> that is the wrong word
20:06:21 <sylvaing> this section needs some work and a couple of examples imo
20:06:40 <TabAtkins> Ms2ger: Yes, I am.
20:06:42 <sylvaing> speaking of examples sent mail re: css3-flexbox ex. 4
20:06:58 <TabAtkins> Modulo the fact that we by convention don't use MUST everywhere we should.
20:07:07 <Ms2ger> TabAtkins, I hope you're not including CSS2.1 :)
20:08:19 <TabAtkins> Ms2ger: Not really, but if there are uses of must/should/may that are incorrect, we should errata them.
20:08:43 <Ms2ger> How about if they are newly introduced in the errata?
20:09:40 <TabAtkins> Ms2ger: Then yell about it.
20:09:44 <TabAtkins> Because that's stupid.
20:10:20 <Ms2ger> "Note: These names must be quoted to distinguish them from the...
20:19:23 <fantasai> Ms2ger: Indeed, CSS2.1 should be honoring the same conventions as other CSS specs wrt RFC2119
20:19:32 <TabAtkins> Ms2ger: Yup, that's a rpoblem. Please send email on the thread?
20:19:34 <fantasai> Ms2ger: any deviation is an error
20:19:38 <nimbu> nimbu has joined #css
20:19:39 <Ms2ger> Eheh
20:19:40 <TabAtkins> (Should change to "have to".)
20:19:42 <fantasai> Ms2ger: yes, that should be "need to be"
20:19:47 <TabAtkins> Or that, yeah.
20:20:00 <Ms2ger> I hope you don't mind if I don't try to point out all the cases? :)
20:20:17 <TabAtkins> Some is better than none.
20:20:21 <fantasai> point out as many or few as you want :)
20:20:35 <fantasai> just know that they're errors, and if you point them out, we'll accept to fix the :)
20:20:38 <Ms2ger> And just sent email
20:20:38 <fantasai> s/the/them/
20:21:01 <Ms2ger> I know they're errors, I just wasn't sure the CSSWG agreed with me :)
20:21:37 <fantasai> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/conform.html#defs
20:22:18 <fantasai> conformance requirements aren't *only* expressed in RFC2119 terms, but when they're used, they should match RFC2119's interpretation
20:23:33 <TabAtkins> And the corollarly, when the RFC2119 terms are used, they should match RFC2119's interpretation.
20:29:25 <TabAtkins> fantasai: Do you remember the convention we adopted for marking up @-rule names in content?  Is it just double-quote?
20:34:44 <tantek> anyone here that can alter w3c hg perms?
20:35:03 <tantek> plinss perhaps?
20:35:11 <tantek> could you give me (w3c.username = Tantekelik) write permissions to http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/ ? thanks!
20:35:25 <tantek> or Bert I suppose
20:37:53 <tantek> and I've spent enough time fighting hg at w3c (again), though I've made progress. I have local repositories for test, csswg, and fullscreen.
20:38:11 <tantek> and with that, see you all next week.
20:38:19 <plinss> tantek: sorry, I don't have access to that server. Ping Mike Smith.
20:38:40 <tantek> ok
20:38:47 <tantek> the instructions were a bit unclear on our wiki page
20:39:07 <tantek> here: http://wiki.csswg.org/tools/hg?&#obtaining-write-access
20:39:17 <tantek> seems to imply for exceptional cases to email you
20:39:36 <fantasai> TabAtkins: I think so?
20:39:43 <plinss> yes, and I then forward the request to Mike...
20:42:05 <plinss> tantek: In general, people should ask me (or Daniel) so at least one chair can verify the request. So the wiki page is correct, for the csswg and fx repos, fullscreen is another matter.
20:44:33 <TabAtkins> Phew.  I'm down to the IDL part of the spec now.
20:53:01 <TabAtkins> ...this part will take a little bit.
20:57:19 <myakura> myakura has joined #css
20:57:47 <isherman> isherman has joined #css
21:30:14 <fantasai> tantek: Minutes posted http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/1149.html
21:32:35 <TabAtkins> sylvaing: Done.
21:32:55 <TabAtkins> Besides a few tiny wording changes, and a large reorg of the IDL sections, it's all just markup tweaks.
21:33:03 <tantek> Thanks fantasai - I see the resolution to publish with edits stands.
21:33:05 <TabAtkins> Pull and enjoy.
21:33:07 <tantek> (for fullscreen)
21:33:19 <TabAtkins> tantek: Except that Daniel will object personally.
21:33:28 <tantek> I *did* make progress on getting hg setup
21:33:42 <tantek> now I'm only stuck on lxml / html5lib and write permissions
21:33:52 <fantasai> lxml????
21:33:58 <fantasai> are you trying to build the test suite?
21:34:13 <tantek> Anolis requires it
21:34:16 <hober> personally, I think the fullscreen spec could be published as is. we can fix the issues afterwards and publish again.
21:34:22 <fantasai> I.. owww
21:34:26 <hober> but it wasn't worth getting in the middle of that on the call
21:34:26 <tantek> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Anolis
21:34:45 <tantek> hober, I figured I would at least make a good faith effort to make the requested edits
21:34:51 <hober> (publish early and often, i say)
21:34:56 <hober> tantek: *nod*
21:35:02 <fantasai> tantek: OH, Anolis requires lxml and html5lib, not building the CSS2.1 test suite...
21:35:07 <tantek> hober, I'm with you. see aforementioned heartbeat schedule I proposed for CSSWG.
21:35:08 <TabAtkins> fantasai: text-decoration doesn't propogate through to an abspos child, right?  Because it's not in the same inline formatting context?
21:35:08 <fantasai> that's ok then
21:35:11 <fantasai> ^_^
21:35:22 <fantasai> TabAtkins: no, it's explicitly blocked
21:35:35 <fantasai> TabAtkins: Although... that's a really great way to explain it
21:35:38 <fantasai> :)
21:35:51 <TabAtkins> I had no idea the block was explicit.  Yeah, definitely generalize it.
21:35:54 <tantek> in short: March/June/September/November, shortly after f2f meetings that precede or are early in those months.
21:36:42 <gsnedders> fantasai: Does virtualenv not solve the CSS 2.1 testsuite problem nicely?
21:37:00 <tantek> anyway, I'm stuck on editing Fullscreen until those two issues are resolved (am working with folks to do so)
21:37:13 <tantek> however I should theoretically be able to now incorporated the 2nd LC comments on CSS3-UI
21:37:19 <tantek> hopefully to produce a CR
21:37:20 <fantasai> tantek: which two issues?
21:37:28 <tantek> 1. write perms
21:37:33 <tantek> 2. lxml/html5lib install
21:38:03 <fantasai> send a patch of the source file to the other editor and tell him to check it in
21:39:13 <tantek> easier to send the other editor URLs to your and glazou's emails asking him to incorporate those.
21:39:25 <tantek> (which I did as soon as you raised them in the call and I quickly looked them over)
21:39:52 <fantasai> that works too,
21:39:57 <fantasai> might want to pass on the minutes, too
21:43:07 <tantek> I believe the gist was passed on, the resolved to publish with edits.
22:04:38 <sylvaing> tabatkins THANKS!
22:05:09 <TabAtkins> np
22:05:19 <TabAtkins> Getting nerd-sniped is usually fun.
22:06:33 <fantasai> TabAtkins: draft resolution sent, let me know if I should send it out
22:58:27 <fantasai> gsnedders: no idea, I haven't tried it
23:10:28 <krit> krit has joined #css
23:50:14 <drublic> drublic has joined #css