IRC log of css on 2012-06-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:17:17 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #css
15:17:17 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:17:22 [glazou]
Zakim, this will be Style
15:17:22 [Zakim]
ok, glazou; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 43 minutes
15:17:26 [glazou]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:31:18 [jet]
jet has joined #CSS
15:47:23 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
15:47:26 [arronei_]
arronei_ has joined #css
15:54:14 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
15:54:14 [Zakim]
15:54:29 [Zakim]
15:54:31 [Zakim]
15:54:31 [Zakim]
15:54:37 [glazou]
Zakim, ?P22 is me
15:54:37 [Zakim]
sorry, glazou, I do not recognize a party named '?P22'
15:54:44 [glazou]
Zakim, ??P22 is me
15:54:45 [Zakim]
+glazou; got it
15:55:01 [glenn]
glenn has joined #css
15:55:21 [antonp]
antonp has joined #css
15:55:44 [Zakim]
15:56:19 [glazou]
15:56:40 [oyvind]
oyvind has joined #css
15:56:49 [Zakim]
15:57:05 [glenn]
zakim, ??p7 is me
15:57:05 [Zakim]
+glenn; got it
15:58:05 [Zakim]
15:58:25 [Zakim]
15:59:18 [Zakim]
+ +1.206.675.aaaa
15:59:20 [Zakim]
15:59:26 [stearns]
zakim, aaaa is me
15:59:35 [glenn]
guess you scared them off
15:59:37 [CesarAcebal]
CesarAcebal has joined #css
15:59:53 [glazou]
15:59:58 [Zakim]
16:00:21 [Zakim]
16:00:25 [Zakim]
16:00:32 [florianr]
Zakim, I am ??P36
16:00:32 [Zakim]
+florianr; got it
16:00:33 [stearns]
calling back on a (hopefully less-noisy) line
16:00:36 [Zakim]
- +1.206.675.aaaa
16:00:38 [Rossen]
Rossen has joined #css
16:00:56 [rbetts]
rbetts has joined #css
16:01:23 [Zakim]
16:01:27 [hober]
Zakim, Apple has me
16:01:28 [Zakim]
+hober; got it
16:01:41 [Zakim]
+ +34.60.94.aabb
16:01:41 [Zakim]
16:01:44 [Zakim]
16:01:59 [Rossen]
Zakim, [Microsoft] is me
16:01:59 [Zakim]
+Rossen; got it
16:02:01 [CesarAcebal]
zakim, aabb is me
16:02:01 [Zakim]
+CesarAcebal; got it
16:02:09 [Zakim]
16:02:12 [glazou]
Zakim, Brian_Leroux is rbetts
16:02:12 [Zakim]
+rbetts; got it
16:02:17 [Zakim]
16:02:52 [SteveZ]
SteveZ has joined #css
16:03:00 [Zakim]
16:03:04 [glazou]
16:03:11 [glazou]
not _that_ kind of duck
16:03:11 [Zakim]
+ +1.253.307.aacc
16:03:16 [smfr]
smfr has joined #css
16:03:17 [arronei_]
zakim, aacc is me
16:03:22 [Zakim]
+arronei_; got it
16:03:31 [plinss]
rbetts: use to update the phone number to nick mapping in Zakim
16:03:44 [rbetts]
will do that right now
16:03:59 [Zakim]
16:04:25 [fantasai]
ScribeNick: fantasai
16:04:41 [bradk]
bradk has joined #css
16:04:45 [fantasai]
glazou: Unprefixing of transforms, transitions, and animations
16:04:48 [fantasai]
glazou: max 10 minutes
16:05:00 [fantasai]
glazou: Since MS unprefixed these in IE10, is allowing other vendors to do that right now.
16:05:05 [fantasai]
glazou: and get status report on the specs
16:05:15 [Zakim]
16:05:16 [fantasai]
Tab: I'm morally approving of this move, we should all do it
16:05:28 [vhardy__]
vhardy__ has joined #css
16:05:34 [fantasai]
Florian: It's painful that they're prefixed, so now cat is out of box, yes.
16:05:46 [fantasai]
dbaron: I think we should unprefix as well. Would also like to see the specs move forward.
16:05:52 [fantasai]
glazou: Hearing consensus here. Any objection?
16:05:58 [Zakim]
16:06:11 [fantasai]
smfr: Are we making an exception for these specs specifically, or changing the policy in general?
16:06:17 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.617.aadd
16:06:17 [bradk]
sorry I'm late
16:06:24 [fantasai]
Florian: We're making an exception right now, can discuss the rest later.
16:06:28 [fantasai]
smfr: I'm ok with that then.
16:06:58 [fantasai]
Florian: Are we some strings attached with this permission, or do we assume every implementation is good enough?
16:07:01 [fantasai]
glazou: The latter
16:07:13 [koji]
koji has joined #css
16:07:14 [glazou]
Zakim, who is noisy?
16:07:23 [fantasai]
plinss: I think everyone's impl should be matching the spec at this point, given that I don't see a problem with unprefixing.
16:07:28 [Zakim]
glazou, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 20 (53%), glazou (59%), rbetts (29%), TabAtkins_ (5%), +1.415.617.aadd (16%)
16:07:56 [fantasai]
smfr: We're not in a position to object, but asking forgiveness here not permission.
16:08:01 [fantasai]
16:08:05 [fantasai]
glazou: We did discuss this before.
16:08:24 [fantasai]
Florian: Browser vendors can do anything they want, obviously; question is what *should* we do.
16:08:47 [fantasai]
plinss: They can do anything they want, but if they go against WG they're non-conforming.
16:09:05 [fantasai]
plinss: Getting WG to agree means they can ship unprefixed and still be conformant.
16:09:24 [fantasai]
plinss: This isn't a change in policy, this is a special exception. We've discussed several times before, didn't have consensus. Seem to have consensus now.
16:09:43 [fantasai]
plinss: Still like to get to CR.
16:09:44 [nimbu]
nimbu has joined #css
16:09:48 [ChrisL]
ChrisL has joined #css
16:10:13 [fantasai]
plinss: MS is not going off on a limb and doing things on their own. MS didn't quite get permission first, but we're at a place where we're ready to give permission anyway.
16:10:31 [fantasai]
smfr: Let's imagine that we discover IE doesn't match the CSS Transforms spec when it comes to 3D Rendering section
16:10:46 [fantasai]
smfr: Do we now have to match IE's behavior because it's unprefixed, or they have a bug?
16:10:48 [Zakim]
16:11:00 [fantasai]
Tab: It'll be standard compat issue -- what decision breaks the least thing. Just like 2.1 decisions.
16:11:13 [fantasai]
glazou: IE10 is a preview, right? Still have times to fix things if urgent.
16:11:16 [tantek]
Zakim, who is here?
16:11:16 [Zakim]
On the phone I see sylvaing, glazou, plinss, glenn (muted), fantasai, antonp, dbaron, florianr, [Apple], CesarAcebal, Rossen, rbetts, stearns, SteveZ, TabAtkins_, arronei_, smfr,
16:11:16 [Zakim]
... ??P11, bradk, +1.415.617.aadd, ChrisL
16:11:17 [Zakim]
[Apple] has hober
16:11:19 [Zakim]
On IRC I see ChrisL, nimbu, koji, vhardy__, bradk, smfr, SteveZ, rbetts, Rossen, CesarAcebal, oyvind, antonp, glenn, arronei_, dbaron, jet, RRSAgent, Zakim, glazou, SimonSapin,
16:11:20 [fantasai]
sylvaing: Yes, some lattitude about that.
16:11:25 [Zakim]
... drublic, kennyluck, florianr, Ms2ger, tantek, danielfilho, ed, decadance, krijnh, isherman, stearns, shepazu, logbot, heycam|away, sylvaing, alexmog, shans, vhardy,
16:11:26 [fantasai]
dbaron: Still some open issues in the specs.
16:11:27 [Zakim]
... CSSWG_LogBot, hober, fantasai, TabAtkins, gsnedders, paul___irish, arronei, dglazkov, Hixie, trackbot, Bert, plinss
16:11:31 [Zakim]
16:11:34 [Zakim]
16:11:45 [florianr]
Zakim, I am ??P36
16:11:47 [Zakim]
+florianr; got it
16:11:52 [Zakim]
16:11:59 [fantasai]
sylvaing: We expect that in some cases we'll match spec, in others might be non-conformant against testcases
16:12:00 [florianr]
Zakim, I am ??P80
16:12:00 [Zakim]
+florianr; got it
16:12:08 [Zakim]
16:12:17 [tantek]
good morning
16:12:19 [nimbu]
Zakim, aadd is me
16:12:22 [Zakim]
+nimbu; got it
16:12:29 [fantasai]
glazou: So, resolve? Any objection?
16:12:48 [fantasai]
glazou: I'm hearing no objection, declaring consensus, we're unprefixing Transforms, Transitions, and Animations
16:12:53 [tantek]
16:13:13 [Zakim]
16:13:14 [fantasai]
RESOLVED: Transitions, Transforms, and Animations may be released unprefixed.
16:13:20 [fantasai]
glazou asks about status of spcs
16:13:30 [fantasai]
sylvaing: Now that release preview is out, will make more time to go through issues
16:13:43 [fantasai]
sylvaing: Once done with flexbox, want to give priority to those
16:14:07 [fantasai]
smfr: We have 11 open bugs on Transforms, 5 are editorial, 2 are already resolved, so 3-4 need more consideration
16:14:12 [fantasai]
smfr: Don't think any big serious issues
16:14:25 [fantasai]
plinss: Good time to push on getting tests for these specs
16:14:48 [fantasai]
florianr: Speaking of tests, when releasing unprefix, is it encouraged or required to release implementation report?
16:15:15 [Zakim]
16:15:42 [fantasai]
16:15:47 [tantek]
normally, unprefixing can happen as soon as a draft enters CR
16:15:48 [koji]
zakim, ??p19 is me
16:15:48 [Zakim]
+koji; got it
16:15:50 [tantek]
implementation reports typically come sometime *during* CR.
16:16:00 [tantek]
re: florianr question
16:16:00 [fantasai]
tantek, read snapshot
16:16:13 [rbetts_]
rbetts_ has joined #css
16:16:26 [fantasai]
plinss: Prefixes was discussed with TAG, and they said we don't have a one-document explanation of our policy, both from vendor and author perspective
16:16:31 [fantasai]
plinss: Think it's a good idea, publish as WG Note
16:16:35 [ChrisL]
sounds good
16:16:37 [fantasai]
plinss: Sound good to everyone?
16:16:37 [fantasai]
16:16:41 [ChrisL]
who will write it?
16:16:48 [SteveZ]
+1 for prefix document
16:16:58 [fantasai]
Florian: Do we want to publish such a note before we debate policy, or only after we decide what the new policy should be?
16:17:05 [fantasai]
sylvaing: Don't think any harm in documenting current practice
16:17:05 [SteveZ]
We should document what we have been doing
16:17:11 [fantasai]
plinss: Good to say what we're changing from
16:17:41 [fantasai]
dbaron: If we're going to change it, should publish old and new policies together
16:18:01 [fantasai]
16:18:14 [nimbu]
there is some echo
16:18:17 [fantasai]
fantasai: Policy for vendors is already documented in snapshot, just not for authors
16:18:18 [dbaron]
fantasai: old policy from vendor perspective is documented in snapshot and in drafts that follow module template
16:18:27 [ChrisL]
fantasai: from an author perspective its not documented
16:18:36 [ChrisL]
zakim, who is noisy?
16:18:43 [fantasai]
plinss: Also heard feedback that shwhat's in snapshot is not clear
16:18:46 [Zakim]
ChrisL, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: koji (25%)
16:18:48 [glazou]
Zakim, mute koji
16:18:48 [Zakim]
koji should now be muted
16:18:48 [Zakim]
16:19:08 [tantek]
fantasai - yes, what plinss said (re: snapshot, and your suggestion to "read snapshot")
16:19:12 [fantasai]
glazou: Ok, let's do that. Who is going to write the document?
16:19:17 [fantasai]
ChrisL: I'm happy to help for that
16:19:32 [fantasai]
Florian: I'm not sure we agree on what authors are supposed to do
16:19:35 [nimbu]
i am happy to help gather feedback from author side of things
16:19:40 [alexmog_]
alexmog_ has joined #css
16:19:44 [fantasai]
glazou: Let's write the document, it'll go through this WG and we'll discuss it
16:19:45 [nimbu]
cc: florianr
16:19:52 [Zakim]
16:19:54 [fantasai]
plinss: Document gives us a concrete proposal to start with
16:20:01 [koji]
zakim, ??p12 is me
16:20:02 [Zakim]
+koji; got it
16:20:17 [fantasai]
Florian: Just concerned we'll spend too much time on that
16:20:23 [fantasai]
plinss: Chairs job to manage time
16:20:36 [fantasai]
RESOLVED: WWrite document explaining prefixing policy as WG Note
16:20:38 [glazou]
16:20:42 [fantasai]
Topic: Box Alignment
16:20:47 [TabAtkins]
ScribeNick: TabAtkins
16:20:53 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: We all agreed we shoudl work on this.
16:21:01 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: and there were several decisions taht went into flexbox that went into the draft.
16:21:17 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: I want to publish this with Flexbox, because we wanted to make it clear that the Flexbox properties will be extended.
16:21:22 [tantek]
I am for publication of the FPWD
16:21:25 [ChrisL]
16:21:34 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: So I'd like to publish FPWD of Box Align on the same day we publish Flexbox LC.
16:21:36 [fantasai]
16:21:39 [SteveZ]
16:21:40 [TabAtkins]
florianr: Good.
16:21:51 [TabAtkins]
dbaron: What does the current draft say about how it applies to blocks?
16:22:08 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: Same thing it said in the f2f - justify is in the inline direction, align is in the block direction.
16:22:25 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: [explains what the -content/-self does for Block as well]
16:22:54 [smfr]
3.1 heading says "the ‘box-justify’ property" but the table refers to "justfify-self"
16:23:13 [TabAtkins]
florianr: In the doc you have several parts where you refer to the old properties in Flexbox, those need to be updated.
16:23:19 [ChrisL]
zakim, mute me
16:23:19 [Zakim]
ChrisL should now be muted
16:23:21 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: Yeah, I need to make sure a few things is up-to-date.
16:23:30 [TabAtkins]
florianr: I'm okay with it if those are changed.
16:24:03 [TabAtkins]
dbaron: I think it might be important that the doc be a little clearer about what the big table with checkmarks mean.
16:24:03 [ChrisL]
Bert is on vacation, I will handle the publication
16:24:11 [TabAtkins]
dbaron: It's saying that these properties handle the other models.
16:24:27 [glazou]
this document has the best images in a CSS spec ever :-D
16:24:30 [TabAtkins]
dbaron: It shoudl probably be clear that the extensions are hypothetical currently, but it's still not entirely sure how they'll work.
16:25:03 [TabAtkins]
dbaron: I just don't want people to try and implement these for layout models we haven't discussed yet, based on the little amount of information in this doc.
16:25:14 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: This is a draft, and it does state what happens in the other layout models.
16:25:29 [TabAtkins]
florianr: We agree on the general ideas for how it applies to Block, but not yet the details.
16:26:08 [rbetts]
I agree with glazou. Super helpful illustrations.
16:26:56 [TabAtkins]
dbaron: Some details seem to have been filled in since the f2f.
16:27:02 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: It hasn't been changed since then, only naming.
16:27:10 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: I can remove the properties, or...?
16:27:21 [fantasai]
16:27:24 [TabAtkins]
TabAtkins: (and florian) just put in an issue about Block and Table not yet being finished.
16:27:36 [glazou]
16:27:51 [TabAtkins]
RESOLVED: Publish FPWD of Box Align, with corrections + note about how Block and Table interaction is still uncertain.
16:27:54 [nimbu]
ScribeNick: divya
16:28:03 [nimbu]
ScribeNick: nimbu
16:28:12 [nimbu]
TabAtkins: couple of changes i want to make in vars
16:28:33 [nimbu]
TabAtkins: the reason why i presented int he form i did, because it required least amount of syntax additions, so we can focus on ideas itself
16:28:38 [nimbu]
TabAtkins: i always wanted something similar
16:28:46 [jet]
jet has left #CSS
16:28:58 [nimbu]
TabAtkins: feedback privately from some people in the group that something simpler like a $ sign would be more desirable.
16:29:08 [nimbu]
TabAtkins: changed draft to incorporate that, but it is not permanent
16:29:26 [nimbu]
TabAtkins: var properties are still defined with var-foo, but I would prefer it as $foo, the vars are used as $foo.
16:29:51 [nimbu]
TabAtkins: the var f() exists if you wantto provide default values for vars, and outside of parent f() to refer to inherited values.
16:30:02 [nimbu]
TabAtkins: the big discussion has been going on what kind of syntax
16:30:21 [nimbu]
TabAtkins: some people vocally dislike $ sign and have been playing around with other syntaxes
16:30:34 [nimbu]
TabAtkins: I prefer using $ sign for usage, i would like to use $ sign for property defn as well
16:30:48 [ChrisL]
16:30:53 [nimbu]
glazou: it seems to me $ would conflict with css preprocessors.
16:30:58 [ChrisL]
zakim, unmute me
16:30:58 [Zakim]
ChrisL should no longer be muted
16:31:17 [nimbu]
TabAtkins: the maintainer of sass has mentioned that we shouldnt care about compatibility of css with sass.
16:31:23 [glazou]
Zakim, ack ChrisL
16:31:23 [Zakim]
I see no one on the speaker queue
16:31:24 [florianr]
16:31:31 [nimbu]
ChrisL: i was gonna say what TabAtkins just said.
16:31:44 [nimbu]
TabAtkins: there are other langs like using php to write css, in my experience it is not an issue.
16:31:57 [glazou]
Zakim, ack florianr
16:31:57 [Zakim]
I see no one on the speaker queue
16:31:58 [nimbu]
TabAtkins: it only happens if you are using string interpolation.
16:32:05 [nimbu]
florianr: 3 reasons for disagreeing.
16:32:14 [nimbu]
florianr: yes, sass is willing to be fixed, but it is an open set.
16:32:17 [tantek]
with PHP, just be sure to use single quotes ' ' rather than double quotes " " in order to avoid processing of $ variables
16:32:25 [nimbu]
florianr: since we have an alternative why break things.
16:32:55 [nimbu]
florianr: i am under the impression that threre is a large overlap between people who want to use $ and the set of people who think we should use $ in property names and places other than values.
16:33:07 [nimbu]
florianr: because they behave diff it is a good thing they look different
16:33:29 [bradk]
Let's use the euro symbol instead of the dollar sign.
16:33:31 [nimbu]
florianr: you would introduce another f() to do var inherit, if we have to have a f() anyway, i would just have that syntax rather than multiple mechanisms.
16:33:47 [nimbu]
florianr: the way it was initially proposed, still look best to me.
16:34:01 [nimbu]
16:34:07 [fantasai]
16:34:17 [tantek]
16:34:28 [nimbu]
TabAtkins: if people are confused they will immediately realise that it doesnt work.
16:34:36 [nimbu]
florianr: it doesnt mean that they would immediately understand why
16:34:59 [nimbu]
TabAtkins: it is not even confusing, you define a variable it looks like this, if you try to use variable as property name, it is not something that is possible to confuse
16:35:09 [nimbu]
florianr: it is possible to be ocnfused not be misused.
16:35:16 [tantek]
I agree that any such confusion would be brief.
16:35:30 [nimbu]
fantasai: is the goal to summarize or to decide?
16:35:34 [sylvaing]
bradk, that's still a currency symbol? *cough*
16:35:37 [nimbu]
fantasai: i guess the discussion has been summarized
16:35:40 [nimbu]
16:35:47 [nimbu]
glazou: lets move on.
16:36:00 [nimbu]
TabAtkins: you wanna take on the scribing? :)
16:36:03 [glazou][]=spec%3Dcss3-flexbox
16:36:13 [fantasai]
16:36:14 [TabAtkins]
ScribeNick: tantek
16:36:17 [TabAtkins]
ScribeNick: TabAtkins
16:36:21 [TabAtkins]
Topic: Flexbox
16:36:29 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: First is to discuss the initial value fo the 'flex' proeprty.
16:36:41 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: Ojan was unhappy with our f2f decision to make them flexible by default.
16:36:59 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: The thread produced three possibilities - one we rejected in hamburg, one we accepted, and a third one that seems to have consensus now.
16:37:30 [tantek_]
tantek_ has joined #css
16:37:31 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: The issue is that, if the items are inflexible by default, you can either use the alignment props, auto margins, or flex, and all of these are one step away.
16:37:58 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: The disadvantage is that if you don't have negative-flex by default, you'll run into overflow situations in a lot of situations where you weren't thinking about narrow screens.
16:38:09 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: So having negative flex on by default protects users somewhat.
16:38:36 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: Another disadvantage is that, in the cross direcction, the default is "stretch", which is like flexing, so it would be inconsistent.
16:39:14 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: We talked about this on the list, and it turns out you get more pros and less cons if you make the initial value "0 1 auto", inflexible in growth situations but flexible in shrink situations.
16:39:31 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: The only con that's left is that it's inconsistent with "stretch" in the cross dimension, but that doesn't seem to be a big deal.
16:40:06 [Zakim]
16:40:11 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: The mailing list seems to mostly lean toward the new behavior.
16:40:23 [alexmog_]
zakim, microsoft has me
16:40:23 [Zakim]
+alexmog_; got it
16:40:40 [TabAtkins]
TabAtkins: Among the implementors and editors, there were no strong objections, one favoring current behavior, and the rest favoring new behavior.
16:40:54 [TabAtkins]
alexmog_: I ahve one problem with the new defaults - there is no keyword for whatever this is.
16:41:08 [TabAtkins]
alexmog_: I think if we like this, we should have a keyword for it.
16:41:20 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: The keyword for that is "initial". We can put it into the "common values for flex" section.
16:41:40 [fantasai]
16:41:46 [fantasai]
"flex: initial"
16:41:55 [TabAtkins]
alexmog_: Usually the smart default is called "auto". If that's not applicable here, maybe we shouldn't add it.
16:42:08 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: It's important to make it easy to get realtive flex - it should be 1 keyword.
16:42:28 [TabAtkins]
alexmog_: It might work if all of these defaults remain defaults in flex contents.
16:42:45 [TabAtkins]
alexmog_: So "flex:auto" means "0 1 auto", while "flex:1" means "flex: 1 1 auto".
16:42:54 [TabAtkins]
antonp: I think I agree here.
16:43:07 [TabAtkins]
antonp: There's no reason your shortcut can't be a bit clever.
16:43:34 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: We already do some magic - "flex:1" sets flex-basis to 0.
16:43:58 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: I would rather have the basis set by itself consistently set flex to 1 instead of having the "auto" keyword set it to 0.
16:44:31 [TabAtkins]
alexmog_: I just think that too much magic makes it difficult to use. I'd much prefer shorthands to set what I specify, and use defaults for whatever I don't specify.
16:45:10 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: I like the current shorthand behavior.
16:45:16 [tantek]
glazou, plinss - aside: re: which mailing list for Fullscreen - I am ok with public-webapps per Art Barstow's suggestion.
16:45:18 [TabAtkins]
alexmog_: But not the initial values?
16:45:39 [glazou]
tantek: please say by email
16:45:50 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: I think the initial values could possibly change. But I think this is limited magic. If you set only the flex-grow, it gives a special flex-basis. If you set only the flex-basis, it gives a special flex-grow.
16:46:05 [tantek]
glazou - will do
16:46:08 [glazou]
16:46:14 [TabAtkins]
alexmog_: Pretty much every use of flexbox I've seen has flex explicitly specified on every element.
16:46:44 [TabAtkins]
alexmog_: If they want default behavior, they'll have to remember how to set that.
16:46:49 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: They just use 'initial'.
16:47:52 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: I think authors will just learn to use "initial" here for this behavior.
16:48:15 [sylvaing]
does not like depending on a keyword that is totally new for most authors and is not well supported elsewhere
16:48:29 [sylvaing]
"just use this global keyword that...doesn't really work anywhere else for now"
16:48:30 [TabAtkins]
alexmog_: I don't think anyone is really against it - I'm just slightly uncomfortable with new defaults.
16:48:53 [TabAtkins]
antonp: Someone said on the mailing list that shouldn't the default be "do very little"?
16:49:10 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: We rejected that - having negative flex on by default helps users when the author wasn't thinking about things like narrow screens.
16:50:02 [TabAtkins]
alexmog_: If we don't have it stretch by default in the main axis, could we change back to 'start' for cross-alignment?
16:50:23 [TabAtkins]
TabAtkins: It was that way - I changed it to 'stretch' based on your feedback that we shoudl be consistent with the old draft. I'm fine either way.
16:50:32 [ChrisL]
zakim, mute me
16:50:32 [Zakim]
ChrisL should now be muted
16:50:35 [TabAtkins]
florianr: One debate at a time, please?
16:50:59 [glazou]
16:51:11 [SteveZ]
Abstain and dropping off
16:51:21 [Zakim]
16:51:28 [TabAtkins]
16:51:33 [glazou]
Zakim, who is on the phone ?
16:51:33 [Zakim]
On the phone I see sylvaing, glazou, plinss, glenn (muted), fantasai, antonp, dbaron, [Apple], CesarAcebal, Rossen, rbetts, stearns, TabAtkins_, arronei_, smfr, ??P11, bradk,
16:51:37 [Zakim]
... nimbu, ChrisL (muted), florianr.a, tantek, koji, [Microsoft]
16:51:37 [Zakim]
[Apple] has hober
16:51:37 [Zakim]
[Microsoft] has alexmog_
16:51:43 [TabAtkins]
A: Keep current behavior (initival value of flex is "1 1 auto").
16:51:59 [TabAtkins]
B: Change current behavior to be non-flexible by default (initial value of flex is "0 1 auto")
16:52:17 [stearns]
abstain (if we take votes by IRC as well it could go faster)
16:52:17 [fantasai]
Ojan and dholbert on the mailing list chose B
16:52:21 [nimbu]
16:52:32 [TabAtkins]
sylvaing: A
16:52:35 [TabAtkins]
glazou: abstain
16:52:37 [TabAtkins]
plinss: abs
16:52:49 [tantek]
tantek: abstain
16:52:51 [ChrisL]
16:52:52 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: B
16:52:57 [TabAtkins]
antonp: abstain
16:52:57 [dbaron]
dbaron: abstain
16:53:05 [arronei_]
arronei: abstain
16:53:07 [TabAtkins]
hober: abstain
16:53:16 [TabAtkins]
CesarAcebal: abstain
16:53:19 [TabAtkins]
Rossen: A
16:53:22 [TabAtkins]
rbetts: A
16:53:24 [TabAtkins]
TabAtkins: B
16:53:33 [TabAtkins]
smfr: abstain
16:53:39 [TabAtkins]
bradk: abstain
16:53:39 [tantek]
ChrisL - abstain winning = leave to editor's choice IMHO.
16:53:48 [antonp]
16:53:56 [TabAtkins]
florianr: B
16:54:09 [TabAtkins]
alexmog_: A
16:54:40 [tantek]
<aside>glazou, plinss - email sent re: Fullscreen. thanks for your consideration.</aside>
16:55:53 [rbetts]
I can live with B.
16:56:10 [TabAtkins]
glazou: The people who want A, can you live with B?
16:57:19 [fantasai]
16:57:29 [glazou]
16:57:34 [TabAtkins]
RESOLVED: initial value of 'flex' is "0 1 auto", editors to decide details among themselves.
16:57:43 [fantasai]
flex: 0 1 auto
16:57:47 [fantasai]
flex: 0 auto
16:58:06 [Zakim]
16:58:26 [glenn]
abstain on prior straw poll
16:58:55 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: REquest was to make a flex value of "0" be special - instead of setting flex-shrink to 1 (its initial value), set it to 0 as well.
16:59:14 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: Given the choice we just made, I think we should reverse that, and make omitted flex-shrink always take its initial value.
16:59:33 [fantasai]
Alex: makes sense
17:00:03 [TabAtkins]
RESOLVED: Reverse the f2f decision, make omitted flex-shrink in the flex shorthand always use the initial value.
17:00:09 [tantek]
go LC!
17:00:12 [TabAtkins]
Topic: Publish Flexbox as LC?
17:00:14 [fantasai]
RESOLVED: no change to flex shorthanding due to that previous issue
17:00:19 [TabAtkins]
TabAtkins: We're okay with the remaining issues.
17:00:23 [Zakim]
17:00:24 [Zakim]
17:00:24 [Zakim]
17:00:26 [Zakim]
17:00:26 [Zakim]
17:00:26 [Zakim]
17:00:26 [Zakim]
17:00:27 [Zakim]
17:00:29 [Zakim]
17:00:29 [TabAtkins]
RESOLVED: Publish Flexbox as LC.
17:00:32 [Zakim]
17:00:33 [Zakim]
17:00:33 [nimbu]
17:00:35 [nimbu]
nimbu has left #css
17:00:35 [Zakim]
17:00:38 [Zakim]
17:00:59 [Zakim]
17:01:03 [Zakim]
17:01:16 [Zakim]
17:01:20 [Zakim]
17:01:34 [fantasai]
ChrisL: If Tab and I can turn this around in a few hours and get it on your desk by tomorrow morning, pubrules-checked... can you publish tomorrow?
17:02:17 [Zakim]
17:02:38 [ChrisL]
no, it needs 24 hours notice
17:03:24 [vhardy__]
vhardy__ has joined #css
17:03:37 [ChrisL]
in other words there needs to be a publication request and pubrules-compliant =ddocuments in place on wednesday morning (france time) for a thursday morning publication
17:04:00 [antonp]
folks, you didn't minute the resolution to go to LC
17:04:32 [ChrisL]
anton, I see a minuted resolution on IRC
17:04:58 [antonp]
oops sorry, i see it lower down
17:05:36 [antonp]
great! and good result :-)
17:05:40 [antonp]
antonp has left #css
17:06:37 [krit]
krit has joined #css
17:26:07 [fantasai]
17:26:59 [vhardy_]
vhardy_ has joined #css
17:33:11 [vhardy_]
vhardy_ has joined #css
17:35:00 [oyvind]
oyvind has left #css
17:48:08 [vhardy_]
vhardy_ has joined #css
17:58:09 [Zakim]
17:58:11 [Zakim]
18:01:29 [Zakim]
18:06:30 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, nimbu, in Style_CSS FP()12:00PM
18:06:31 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
18:06:31 [Zakim]
Attendees were sylvaing, glazou, plinss, glenn, fantasai, +1.206.675.aaaa, antonp, dbaron, florianr, hober, +34.60.94.aabb, Rossen, CesarAcebal, stearns, rbetts, SteveZ,
18:06:31 [Zakim]
... TabAtkins_, +1.253.307.aacc, arronei_, smfr, bradk, +1.415.617.aadd, ChrisL, tantek, nimbu, koji, alexmog_
18:06:33 [fantasai]
TabAtkins: we need a changes section
18:07:11 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: Ah, right.
18:07:30 [TabAtkins]
Just put in a list with a single bullet point "* everything"
18:08:13 [TabAtkins]
Do you want a list here, or should I edit the spec?
18:08:40 [TabAtkins]
Since you'll either have to hand-insert it into Overview.html or re-do your fixes, I'm not sure which is better.
18:09:26 [TabAtkins]
Also: are we just doing changes since last WD?
18:10:36 [fantasai]
yes, only since last WD
18:10:45 [TabAtkins]
Okay, so:
18:11:03 [TabAtkins]
* name of the 'display' values were changed to ''flex'' and ''inline-flex''
18:11:28 [TabAtkins]
* replaced elements are now guaranteed to be flexbox items, even if they're replaced with inline content
18:11:50 [TabAtkins]
* made ''visiblity:collapse'' have an effect
18:12:08 [TabAtkins]
* added "min-size: auto"
18:12:42 [TabAtkins]
* changed the defaults of 'flex'
18:13:00 [TabAtkins]
* turned 'flex' into a shorthand, with longhands of 'flex-grow/shrink/basis'
18:13:08 [TabAtkins]
* Renamed all the alignment properties
18:13:14 [TabAtkins]
* and some of their values
18:13:56 [TabAtkins]
* made negative flexibility relative to the base size of items in addition to the flex shrink ratio
18:14:07 [TabAtkins]
* Specified the page layout algorithm
18:14:21 [TabAtkins]
* Edits and clarifications to the flex layout algorithm
18:14:29 [TabAtkins]
I think that's it.
18:18:11 [Liam]
Liam has joined #css
18:33:34 [vhardy_]
vhardy_ has joined #css
18:34:22 [nimbu]
nimbu has joined #css
18:36:43 [fantasai]
18:52:58 [tantek]
tantek has joined #css
18:57:50 [vhardy_]
vhardy_ has joined #css
19:03:43 [tantek]
tantek has joined #css
19:06:44 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #css
19:45:38 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: I just remembered that "flex:initial" can't work that way.
19:45:48 [TabAtkins]
A shorthand just passes "initial" down to its longhands.
19:47:39 [tantek]
tantek has joined #css
19:47:45 [TabAtkins]
Unless we special-case this somehow.
19:48:12 [TabAtkins]
19:51:47 [vhardy_]
vhardy_ has joined #css
19:53:19 [nimbu]
nimbu has joined #css
19:56:38 [ChrisL]
ChrisL has joined #css
20:03:52 [nimbu1]
nimbu1 has joined #css
20:04:23 [nimbu1]
nimbu1 has left #css
20:12:48 [tantek]
tantek has joined #css
20:25:05 [fantasai]
TabAtkins: And that doesn't work why?
20:25:25 [TabAtkins]
Because I'm dumb and confused myself?
20:26:08 [fantasai]
20:26:25 [kennyluck]
kennyluck has joined #css
20:33:01 [danielfilho]
danielfilho has joined #css
20:52:29 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
21:11:04 [decadance]
decadance has joined #css
22:01:11 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #css
22:02:32 [vhardy_]
vhardy_ has joined #css
22:11:34 [nimbu]
nimbu has joined #css
22:26:24 [krit]
krit has joined #css
23:32:11 [jdaggett]
jdaggett has joined #css
23:32:43 [jdaggett_]
jdaggett_ has joined #css