IRC log of css on 2013-01-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:53:27 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #css
16:53:27 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:53:37 [plinss]
rrsagent, make logs public
16:53:43 [plinss]
zakim, this will be style
16:53:43 [Zakim]
ok, plinss; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
16:56:23 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
16:56:29 [Zakim]
16:56:40 [darktears]
Zakim, ??P25 is me
16:56:41 [Zakim]
+darktears; got it
16:56:44 [BradK]
BradK has joined #CSS
16:56:57 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
16:57:59 [nvdbleek]
zakim, code?
16:57:59 [Zakim]
the conference code is 78953 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, nvdbleek
16:58:48 [Zakim]
16:58:49 [Zakim]
+ +1.858.354.aaaa
16:58:58 [plinss]
zakim, aaaa is me
16:58:58 [Zakim]
+plinss; got it
16:59:16 [Zakim]
16:59:26 [Zakim]
16:59:58 [cabanier]
cabanier has joined #css
17:00:01 [rhauck]
rhauck has joined #css
17:00:14 [stearns]
zakim, krit has me
17:00:15 [Zakim]
+stearns; got it
17:00:34 [leif1]
leif1 has joined #css
17:00:39 [Zakim]
17:00:59 [Zakim]
17:01:03 [rhauck]
zakim, krit has me
17:01:03 [Zakim]
+rhauck; got it
17:01:07 [Zakim]
17:01:38 [smfr]
smfr has joined #css
17:01:45 [Zakim]
17:02:36 [Zakim]
17:02:50 [BradK]
Welcome, nick
17:03:08 [Zakim]
17:03:36 [teoli]
teoli has joined #css
17:04:01 [Zakim]
17:04:43 [Zakim]
17:06:21 [Zakim]
17:06:22 [plinss]
zakim, who is on the phone
17:06:22 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on the phone', plinss
17:06:32 [plinss]
zakim, who is on the phone?
17:06:32 [Zakim]
On the phone I see darktears, plinss, nvdbleek, hober, krit, SylvaIng, BradK, leif, smfr, fantasai, cabanier, Bert, dbaron, SimonSapin1
17:06:34 [Zakim]
krit has rhauck
17:06:48 [SimonSapin]
still on Zakim with the wrong nick…
17:07:01 [Bert]
Scribe: Bert
17:07:28 [plinss]
17:07:42 [teoli]
teoli has joined #css
17:07:46 [Bert]
Topic: Welcome Nick
17:07:58 [Bert]
Nick wil not be at the ftf.
17:08:03 [Bert]
Topic: Agenda ftf
17:08:23 [Bert]
plinss: Please add topics to wiki
17:08:39 [Bert]
... Any questions, issues about ftf?
17:08:51 [smfr]
smfr has changed the topic to:
17:08:59 [nvdbleek]
zakim, mute me
17:09:00 [Zakim]
nvdbleek should now be muted
17:09:08 [Bert]
Topic: viewport units
17:09:19 [fantasai]
17:09:23 [Bert]
fantasai: Seems a growing consensus on www-style.
17:10:02 [Bert]
... Generally you try to fit things in view;oort and don't want scroll.
17:10:07 [Zakim]
17:10:21 [Bert]
... If you *do* want to scroll, you can do 'overflow: scroll' to have scrollbars.
17:11:04 [Bert]
... Alternative is 'overflow: hidden' to be sure to not have scriollbars, but that has side effect of clipping in case things *do* overflow.
17:11:26 [Bert]
??: I agree with that
17:11:37 [Bert]
plinss: Objections?
17:11:41 [sylvaing]
17:11:42 [fantasai]
rossen agrees too
17:11:50 [fantasai]
(there was someone else)
17:12:40 [TabAtkins_]
TabAtkins_ has joined #css
17:12:49 [Bert]
RESOLVED: viewport units in case of 'overflow:auto' are sized as if scrollbar is *not* present (even if they are)
17:13:16 [Bert]
dbaron: Worth saying [???]
17:13:20 [Zakim]
17:13:25 [Bert]
17:13:27 [Zakim]
+ +1.832.797.aabb
17:13:30 [dbaron]
s/[???]/something about overflow:scroll/
17:13:34 [TabAtkins_]
zakim, aabb is me
17:13:34 [Zakim]
+TabAtkins_; got it
17:13:39 [Bert]
plinss: You mean horizontal scrolling?
17:14:05 [Bert]
SimonSapin: with 100vh, will get overflow?
17:14:23 [Bert]
rossen: with 100.1vh you will have scrollbars.
17:14:45 [SimonSapin]
100vw + lots of content vertically to trigger a vertical scrollbar
17:15:01 [SimonSapin]
=> horizontal scroll by the width of the scrollbar?
17:15:18 [Bert]
plinss: Any objection now, after this explanation?
17:15:54 [fantasai]
In case of 'overflow: scroll', scrollbars are accounted for in calculating viewport units
17:16:14 [Bert]
plinss: When there is overflow:auto the units will be as if there is no scrollbar, but with 'overflow: scroll' the units *will* deduct the scrollbar.
17:16:15 [SimonSapin]
ok, `overflow-y: scroll` would take care of my use case
17:16:15 [fantasai]
(so that 100vh/100vw will not cause scrolling, just disabled scrollbars )
17:16:28 [Bert]
Topic: Box Module
17:16:32 [sylvaing]
could we have width:100% and width:100vw be different? Does that matter?
17:16:42 [Zakim]
17:16:43 [Bert]
plinss: Question was if we want to update the WD.
17:16:48 [glenn]
+Present glenn (IRC only)
17:16:51 [hober]
Zakim, Apple is me
17:16:51 [Zakim]
+hober; got it
17:17:07 [SimonSapin]
sylvaing: I think it’s possible with `overflow: auto`
17:17:13 [SimonSapin]
on the root
17:17:14 [Bert]
bert: what was the discussion last week?
17:17:20 [Bert]
plinss: No resolution last week.
17:17:30 [SimonSapin]
17:17:49 [antonp]
+Present antonp (IRC only)
17:17:51 [sylvaing]
SimonSapin, right. Just stating it looks like it could happen. I'm not sure it's a problem though.
17:17:59 [fantasai]
Bert: Would like a new WD soon, because current is very old. Most issues listed in draft.
17:18:11 [fantasai]
Bert: On the other hand the order of sections in the draft is in flux. It's chaos atm
17:18:28 [fantasai]
Bert: Would like a few weeks for the editors to make sure that it is at least readable, I'm not sure that's the case at the moment
17:19:05 [fantasai]
Bert: Started to look if all the issues were there. E.g. noticed some were mentioned 3 times
17:19:35 [fantasai]
Bert: With a few days of work, could me much nicer draft than now. Not opposed to publishing now, but would be more readable with some time to clean it up a bit.
17:19:42 [Bert]
bert: /me thanks fantasai
17:19:49 [jarek]
jarek has joined #css
17:19:58 [fantasai]
fantasai: I think we should defer to the editor (Bert) and let him decide when it's ready to republish
17:20:30 [fantasai]
Bert: Maybe one week after F2F?
17:21:06 [tantek]
tantek has joined #css
17:21:06 [cabanier]
17:21:17 [Bert]
Topic: Compositing bg images
17:21:52 [Bert]
cabanier: Q is if this is usful feature to pursue.
17:22:08 [Bert]
... It really belongs in BG & Borders.
17:22:17 [Bert]
... It is kind of hard in the Compositing spec.
17:22:50 [Bert]
TabAtkins_: Good idea, the visual effect. I can't say what the imple cost is.
17:23:06 [Bert]
... Putting it in background4 spec may may make spec.
17:23:15 [Bert]
cabanier: Yes, then can put it in shorthand.
17:23:27 [Bert]
TabAtkins_: let it depend on which spec is faster.
17:23:39 [Bert]
cabanier: Pretty simple in term sof implem cost.
17:24:27 [Bert]
plinss: Only multiple background images of a single elt?
17:24:31 [Bert]
cabanier: Yes.
17:24:36 [Bert]
TabAtkins_: Cool.
17:25:10 [Bert]
plinss: But if we ever want compos of bg with other elt, syntax shoul dnot preclude that.
17:25:28 [Bert]
cabanier: Yes, we can add something. or another property later.
17:25:36 [Bert]
dbaron: Curious about use cases.
17:25:47 [Bert]
TabAtkins_: The use case sof compos and blen in general.
17:26:02 [Bert]
... I mght want to animate bgs together.
17:26:19 [Bert]
cabanier: Some clouds, text that inherits what's behind it...
17:26:33 [Bert]
... designers can tell you much better what they want with it.
17:26:47 [Bert]
plinss: Objections?
17:27:14 [Bert]
RESOLVED: keep it in the spec for now.
17:27:41 [Bert]
Topic: overlay value for overflow
17:27:53 [Zakim]
17:27:55 [Bert]
TabAtkins_: Don't know eher eit came from, but it is in the spec.
17:27:59 [tantek]
zakim, mute tantek
17:27:59 [Zakim]
Tantek should now be muted
17:28:10 [Bert]
smfr: A feature that is no longer part of our browser.
17:28:23 [Bert]
... Should have been prefixed. And we don't want to standardize it.
17:28:39 [Bert]
TabAtkins_: What arte you opposed to?
17:28:45 [Zakim]
17:28:49 [Bert]
smfr: It is a user control, not an author control.
17:29:01 [Bert]
dbaron: Agree with smfr
17:29:01 [tantek]
agree with Simon as well
17:29:14 [TabAtkins_]
Sorry, got bumped.
17:29:30 [Zakim]
17:30:00 [Zakim]
17:30:18 [Bert]
sylvaing: We have it in IE (?)
17:30:20 [cabanier]
*sorry, I need to go*
17:30:47 [sylvaing]
we expose auto-hide overlay scrollbars in IE10/Win8 as an overflow-style
17:30:48 [Bert]
TabAtkins_: Avoid jumping text
17:31:01 [Bert]
dbaron: And what if user has never seen an ovverlay scrollbar before?
17:31:12 [Bert]
TabAtkins_: It looks exactly like a normal scrollbar.
17:31:14 [sylvaing]
to the extent authors can MQ touch/mouse it may be interesting for them to pick a default as well
17:31:28 [tantek]
not sure designing this feature in a telcon make sense?
17:31:48 [Bert]
rossen: Only present in case of interaction. User will understand when he sees it.
17:32:15 [Bert]
TabAtkins_: Chromw draw a normal scrollbar, it just overlaps. It looks weird anyway.
17:32:32 [Bert]
... But another way would be perfect fine as well.
17:32:49 [Bert]
rossen: If the platform decides to do it, then that's what you get.
17:33:05 [Bert]
TabAtkins_: Not a difficult problem for design.
17:33:22 [Bert]
sylvaing: Do people do these scrollbars, e.g., with jQuery?
17:33:27 [Bert]
TabAtkins_: I don't know.
17:33:42 [teoli_]
teoli_ has joined #css
17:33:57 [Bert]
smfr: We don't allow to style scrollbars, they look like traditonal scrollbars on Mac.
17:34:39 [Bert]
smfr: If the user hovers near the edge, the scrollbar will appear. Authors should be able to know if such scrollbars are used, maybe a Media Query.
17:34:57 [Bert]
fantasai: 'overflow: scroll' makes sure there is a scrollbar.
17:35:11 [Bert]
TabAtkins_: People don;'t liek scrollbars, don 't use ''scroll'
17:35:46 [Bert]
fantasai: Overlay scrollbars are great. All platforms should just use them.
17:35:54 [tantek]
if scrollbars are ugly, why not just use overflow:hidden?
17:36:10 [smfr]
tantek: overflow:hidden prevents user scrolling
17:36:26 [Bert]
glenn: Maybe spec scrollbars that somehow don't obscure content.
17:36:40 [tantek]
smfr - perhaps that's the answer then - overflow:hidden-scroll
17:36:48 [Bert]
TabAtkins_: Every platform that has overlay scrollbars has done something like that.
17:36:49 [tantek]
hide the scrollbars, but allow scrolling
17:36:56 [tantek]
(native apps seem to do this)
17:36:57 [fantasai]
wrt smfr's mq idea, mq should be for how wide the scrollbars are
17:37:09 [Bert]
glenn: But overlay scrollbars are hidden. Maybe use a partial transparency instead.
17:37:09 [tantek]
(which should be sufficient a use case to justify overflow:hidden-scroll )
17:37:21 [sylvaing]
tantek, this is what iOS and Win8 do. no scrollbar until you start moving around
17:37:25 [tantek]
(they don't even bother to show overlay scrollbars, they just show no scrolling UI, but allow touch scrolling)
17:37:38 [fantasai]
tantek, not sure what you mean. I don't have a scroll wheel, how exactly am I supposed to scroll a window without scrollbars?
17:37:40 [Bert]
TabAtkins_: I get your point.
17:37:53 [tantek]
sylvaing - I'm talking about native apps (e.g. iOS) which don't even show a scrollbars.
17:38:04 [Bert]
smfr: [something about google site]
17:38:11 [tantek]
fantasai - touch, page up page down, etc. native apps do this today on mobile.
17:38:37 [Bert]
plinss: General pricniple is also to not let authors change the fundamental UI of a platform.
17:38:53 [Bert]
Topic: syntax issues
17:38:59 [fantasai]
tantek, that's not at all obvious, especially when it's a scroll view inside the page rather than the main viewport
17:39:13 [Bert]
SimonSapin: q what is a ASCII character.
17:39:22 [tantek]
fantasai - it doesn't work in all cases, just like not all color/bg combinations work in all cases
17:39:42 [tantek]
"not at all obvious" in some cases is never an argument against a style feature - that's a strawman.
17:39:46 [Bert]
TabAtkins_: Yes, change it to 7F. Should not matter. Nobody uses 7F-9F
17:39:58 [Bert]
dbaron: is nbsp inthe range?
17:40:02 [fantasai]
tantek, sorry, I don't think you are making any sense
17:40:04 [tantek]
… just as color/bg combinations do NOT work in all cases
17:40:08 [Bert]
TabAtkins_: No, that is the 1st character out of that range.
17:40:24 [dbaron]
dbaron: I'm ok with it; changing Firefox is relatively straightforward.
17:40:25 [oyvind]
nbsp is a0
17:40:27 [tantek]
fantasai - just because you can come up with a confusing example (strawman) doesn't negate the utility of a feature.
17:40:41 [BradK]
Bert, I think you we're attributing my comments to Glenn.
17:41:04 [fantasai]
BradK, how far back?
17:41:10 [Bert]
bert: is this an errata for 2.1?
17:41:16 [Bert]
TabAtkins_: Yes, should be.
17:41:16 [glenn]
s/glenn: But/BradK/
17:41:31 [BradK]
In the overlay scroll bar stuff
17:41:36 [Bert]
RESOLVED: non-ascii starts at 0x80
17:41:39 [glenn]
s/glenn: Maybe/BradK: Maybe/
17:42:01 [Rossen]
Rossen has joined #css
17:42:02 [Bert]
ACTION bert: add errata to 2.1 about non-ascii from 0x80
17:42:02 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-529 - Add errata to 2.1 about non-ascii from 0x80 [on Bert Bos - due 2013-02-06].
17:42:29 [glenn]
s/BradK overlay/BradK: But overlay/
17:42:41 [glenn]
rrsagent, pointer
17:42:41 [RRSAgent]
17:42:44 [Bert]
TabAtkins_: Some special characters are now allowed instead of undefined. So may have effect on parsers.
17:42:50 [Zakim]
17:42:51 [Zakim]
17:43:04 [Rossen]
Zakim, Microsoft is me
17:43:04 [Zakim]
+Rossen; got it
17:43:28 [Bert]
... But another issue: 2.1 grammar allowed empty selector.
17:43:31 [SimonSapin]
TabAtkins: you actually use an "empty selector" in "parse a declaration block"
17:43:41 [SimonSapin]
though not that selector is not parsed
17:43:51 [Bert]
... I disallowed that in 3.
17:44:03 [Bert]
bert: What does "not allow it mean"?
17:44:19 [Bert]
TabAtkins_: It's either a syntax or a semantics error.
17:44:33 [Bert]
TabAtkins_: Should not affect any use in browsers.
17:44:55 [drublic]
drublic has joined #css
17:45:05 [Bert]
bert: then I say do it as it was: allow in the syntax, it just doesn't match anything.
17:45:18 [SimonSapin]
2.1 allows it
17:45:19 [Bert]
plinss: Seems reasonable to not disallow it.
17:45:30 [Bert]
... Maybe we want it in the OM and add a selector by script later.
17:45:35 [Bert]
TabAtkins_: Potentially.
17:45:49 [Bert]
TabAtkins_: Isn't selector readonly?
17:46:06 [Bert]
SimonSapin: Empty selector prob. doens't show up in the OM.
17:46:18 [Bert]
plinss: Just leave it open for the future.
17:46:43 [Bert]
TabAtkins_: Syntax error resynchs at closing '}'
17:46:56 [oyvind]
selectorText is read/write
17:47:19 [Bert]
... (Well, tiny thing. Doesn't matter.)
17:47:28 [Bert]
plinss: Othe rgrammar issues?
17:47:37 [Bert]
TabAtkins_: Nothing that needs WG attention right now.
17:47:45 [Bert]
plinss: Other topics?
17:47:48 [SimonSapin]
17:48:03 [SimonSapin]
17:48:07 [Bert]
SimonSapin: I'd like a feature in @page: multiple selectors with a comma.
17:48:28 [Zakim]
17:48:28 [Bert]
TabAtkins_: That seems like it was an oversight... See no reason to disallow.
17:48:32 [Bert]
plinss: Objections?
17:48:54 [Bert]
RESOLVED: allow commas in @page rules.
17:49:02 [SimonSapin]
in page selectors
17:49:15 [Bert]
17:49:21 [Zakim]
17:49:22 [Zakim]
17:49:23 [Zakim]
17:49:24 [Bert]
17:49:24 [Zakim]
17:49:24 [Zakim]
17:49:24 [Zakim]
17:49:26 [Zakim]
17:49:26 [Zakim]
17:49:27 [Zakim]
17:49:27 [Zakim]
17:49:29 [Zakim]
17:49:29 [Zakim]
17:49:30 [Zakim]
17:49:31 [Zakim]
17:49:33 [Zakim]
17:49:34 [Zakim]
17:49:38 [Zakim]
17:49:39 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
17:49:39 [Zakim]
Attendees were darktears, nvdbleek, +1.858.354.aaaa, plinss, hober, stearns, SylvaIng, BradK, rhauck, leif, smfr, fantasai, cabanier, Bert, dbaron, SimonSapin1, +1.832.797.aabb,
17:49:39 [Zakim]
... TabAtkins_, Tantek, Rossen, Lea
17:51:16 [jarek_]
jarek_ has joined #css
18:20:28 [teoli]
teoli has joined #css
18:31:48 [jarek]
jarek has joined #css
18:47:40 [tantek]
tantek has joined #css
18:48:25 [SimonSapin]
SimonSapin has joined #css
19:02:38 [lmclister]
lmclister has joined #css
19:05:41 [nvdbleek]
nvdbleek has joined #css
19:13:40 [tantek]
tantek has joined #css
19:42:58 [teoli]
teoli has joined #css
19:56:11 [teoli_]
teoli_ has joined #css
20:02:10 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #css
20:02:20 [teoli]
teoli has joined #css
20:07:23 [teoli_]
teoli_ has joined #css
20:18:17 [teoli]
teoli has joined #css
20:45:24 [teoli_]
teoli_ has joined #css
21:17:05 [guy]
guy has joined #css
21:34:33 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
21:45:31 [drublic]
drublic has joined #css
22:10:22 [antonp]
antonp has joined #css
22:58:06 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
23:43:30 [tantek]
tantek has joined #css