IRC log of css on 2013-06-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:23:39 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #css
15:23:39 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:23:44 [glazou]
Zakim, this will be Style
15:23:44 [Zakim]
ok, glazou; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 37 minutes
15:23:48 [glazou]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:26:46 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
15:43:52 [antonp]
antonp has joined #css
15:49:18 [shezbaig_wk]
shezbaig_wk has joined #css
15:49:44 [glazou]
honestly, the worst in ten years
15:54:12 [sgalineau]
sgalineau has joined #css
15:54:28 [florian]
florian has joined #css
15:55:08 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
15:55:15 [Zakim]
15:55:20 [sgalineau]
sgalineau has joined #css
15:55:27 [florian]
Zakim, [IPcaller] has me
15:55:27 [Zakim]
+florian; got it
15:55:57 [Zakim]
15:56:19 [Zakim]
+ +1.206.675.aaaa
15:56:27 [Zakim]
15:56:28 [sgalineau]
Zakim aaaa is me
15:56:39 [sgalineau]
Zakim, aaaa is me
15:56:39 [Zakim]
+sgalineau; got it
15:56:47 [Zakim]
15:56:53 [glazou]
Zakim, ??P11 is me
15:56:53 [Zakim]
+glazou; got it
15:57:20 [jerenkrantz_]
jerenkrantz_ has joined #css
15:57:54 [BradK]
BradK has joined #CSS
15:58:33 [glazou]
wow, lights going down, almost power outage
15:58:40 [glazou]
if you see me leave the channel, you'll know why
15:58:53 [Zakim]
15:59:15 [Zakim]
15:59:25 [BradK]
Driving in about a minute. Won't look at screen.
15:59:49 [Zakim]
+ +93192aabb
15:59:55 [antonp]
Zakim, aabb is me
15:59:55 [Zakim]
+antonp; got it
16:00:06 [BradK]
Muted too, but listening.
16:00:07 [molly]
molly has joined #css
16:00:27 [dael]
dael has joined #css
16:00:31 [SimonSapin]
SimonSapin has joined #css
16:00:34 [Zakim]
+ +1.212.318.aacc
16:00:44 [jerenkrantz_]
Zakim: aacc is me
16:00:52 [BradK]
I don't see my 650 number
16:00:52 [Zakim]
16:01:08 [antonp]
Zakim, aaccis jerenkrantz_
16:01:08 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'aaccis jerenkrantz_', antonp
16:01:12 [BradK]
Zakim, who is here?
16:01:12 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [IPcaller], plinss, sgalineau, Plh, glazou, Stearns, BradK, antonp, +1.212.318.aacc, ??P61
16:01:14 [Zakim]
[IPcaller] has florian
16:01:14 [Zakim]
On IRC I see SimonSapin, dael, molly, BradK, jerenkrantz_, sgalineau, florian, shezbaig_wk, antonp, dbaron, RRSAgent, Zakim, glazou, cabanier, nvdbleek, zcorpan, darktears, plh,
16:01:14 [Zakim]
... Ms2ger, tobie, arronei_, ed, arno, abucur, cbiesinger, logbot, Liam
16:01:16 [Zakim]
+ +1.610.324.aadd
16:01:17 [Zakim]
16:01:20 [leif]
leif has joined #css
16:01:20 [antonp]
Zakim, aacc is jerenkrantz_
16:01:22 [Zakim]
+jerenkrantz_; got it
16:01:25 [glazou]
florian, same here, you can probably hear the thunder in background from my microphone
16:01:26 [Zakim]
16:01:28 [dael]
zakim: aadd is me
16:01:39 [glazou]
Zakim, who is noisy?
16:01:42 [antonp]
Zakim, aadd is dael
16:01:43 [Zakim]
+dael; got it
16:01:50 [Zakim]
glazou, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [IPcaller] (53%), plinss (9%)
16:01:57 [glazou]
Zakim, mute [IPcaller]
16:01:57 [Zakim]
[IPcaller] should now be muted
16:02:00 [SimonSapin]
Zakim: ??P69 is probably me
16:02:07 [SimonSapin]
Zakim, ??P69 is me
16:02:07 [Zakim]
+SimonSapin; got it
16:02:09 [glazou]
Zakim, unmute [IPcaller]
16:02:09 [Zakim]
[IPcaller] should no longer be muted
16:02:21 [Zakim]
+ +47.23.69.aaee
16:02:27 [florian]
[IPcaller] is several people, including me, but I was muted on my side
16:02:28 [leif]
Zakim, aaee is me
16:02:28 [Zakim]
+leif; got it
16:02:39 [leif]
done :)
16:02:52 [Zakim]
16:02:55 [Zakim]
16:03:10 [shezbaig_wk]
zakim, +jerenkrantz_.a is me
16:03:10 [Zakim]
16:03:11 [Zakim]
sorry, shezbaig_wk, I do not recognize a party named '+jerenkrantz_.a'
16:03:25 [Zakim]
16:03:25 [shezbaig_wk]
zakim, jerenkrantz_.a is me
16:03:26 [Zakim]
+shezbaig_wk; got it
16:03:28 [krit]
krit has joined #css
16:03:48 [Zakim]
16:03:57 [oyvind]
oyvind has joined #css
16:04:05 [Zakim]
16:04:08 [hober]
Zakim, Apple is me
16:04:08 [Zakim]
+hober; got it
16:04:30 [glazou]
Zakim, who is noisy?
16:04:38 [Rossen]
Rossen has joined #css
16:04:41 [Zakim]
glazou, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [IPcaller] (5%), plinss (5%)
16:04:47 [c_palmer]
c_palmer has joined #css
16:04:49 [molly]
16:04:54 [Zakim]
16:05:00 [Zakim]
16:05:06 [glazou]
plh, well I don't ARRRRRRGLL
16:05:20 [SimonSapin]
what’s the status on background-position-x/y?
16:05:21 [JohnJansen]
JohnJansen has joined #CSS
16:05:21 [Zakim]
16:05:30 [Rossen]
zakim, microsoft is me
16:05:32 [Zakim]
+Rossen; got it
16:05:36 [JohnJansen]
Zakim, Micrsoft has JohnJansen
16:05:36 [Zakim]
sorry, JohnJansen, I do not recognize a party named 'Micrsoft'
16:05:44 [JohnJansen]
Zakim, Microsoft has JohnJansen
16:05:45 [Zakim]
sorry, JohnJansen, I do not recognize a party named 'Microsoft'
16:05:52 [antonp]
ScribeNick: antonp
16:06:01 [Zakim]
16:06:09 [sgalineau]
Zakim [Microsoft] has JohnJansen
16:06:15 [sgalineau]
Zakim, [Microsoft] has JohnJansen
16:06:15 [Zakim]
sorry, sgalineau, I do not recognize a party named '[Microsoft]'
16:06:24 [sgalineau]
Zakim, you're drunk
16:06:24 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'you're drunk', sgalineau
16:06:45 [SteveZ]
SteveZ has joined #css
16:07:05 [Rossen]
zakim, Rossen has JohnJansen
16:07:05 [Zakim]
+JohnJansen; got it
16:07:18 [dbaron]
is somebody scribing?
16:07:20 [JohnJansen]
I guess my phone is angry with Zakim.
16:07:28 [antonp]
plh: Chris is sick and Bert is on vacation. So I'm stepping in as publishing rep.
16:07:28 [israelh]
israelh has joined #CSS
16:07:38 [antonp]
.. I hope tomorrow we will be up to date
16:08:02 [antonp]
.. I don't look at the technical issues, just the administrative ones
16:08:13 [MaRakow]
MaRakow has joined #CSS
16:08:58 [antonp]
SimonSapin: shortnames - we discussed in Tokyo
16:09:18 [antonp]
plh: I think there is an issue in this group about shortnames
16:09:24 [antonp]
.. I found inconsistency
16:09:50 [antonp]
plinss: Issue about latest version links vs current version links?
16:09:52 [antonp]
plh: yes
16:10:09 [krit]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:10:09 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [IPcaller], plinss, sgalineau, Plh, glazou, Stearns, BradK, antonp, jerenkrantz_, ??P61, dael, Lea, SimonSapin, leif, Molly_Holzschlag, shezbaig_wk, dbaron,
16:10:13 [Zakim]
... Krit, hober, SteveZ, Rossen, shezbaig_wk.a
16:10:13 [Zakim]
[IPcaller] has florian
16:10:13 [Zakim]
Rossen has JohnJansen
16:10:15 [antonp]
plinss: Also we'll talk about the preprocessor
16:10:25 [antonp]
TOPIC: css-text-3 Issues
16:10:33 [antonp]
Elika sent regrets, and comments to the list
16:10:35 [c_palmer]
Zakim, ??P61 is me
16:10:35 [Zakim]
+c_palmer; got it
16:10:49 [tantek]
tantek has joined #css
16:10:53 [nvdbleek]
zakim, code?
16:10:54 [Zakim]
the conference code is 78953 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, nvdbleek
16:11:02 [antonp]
dbaron: I'd rather wait for Elika I think
16:11:07 [plinss]
16:11:30 [antonp]
plinss: OK
16:11:40 [antonp]
TOPIC: CSS Ruby Editors
16:12:24 [antonp]
Elika and Koji would like to take over as editors.
16:12:27 [antonp]
glazou: fine
16:12:39 [antonp]
RESOLVED: Koji, Elika and Jim as editors
16:12:48 [tantek]
tantek has joined #css
16:12:57 [antonp]
TOPIC: Revive direction focus nav properties
16:13:04 [stearns]
16:13:27 [antonp]
leif: <summarizes issue>
16:13:55 [JohnJansen]
* JohnJansen is not able to dial in either.
16:14:09 [MaRakow]
Also can't dial in
16:14:15 [tantek]
plh, being told
16:14:58 [tantek]
The number or code you have dialed is incorrect. Please check the number or code and try again. Message 7. Switch 521.
16:15:07 [tantek]
have been trying for past 10 min
16:15:16 [antonp]
..: tantek was concerned about whether the properties (?nav-up, nav-down, nav-right, and nav-left ?) were implementable/testable
16:15:31 [antonp]
..: we have a test suite to demonstrate they "work"
16:15:44 [antonp]
..: so, we conclude we only want to drop nav-index not those other four
16:16:00 [antonp]
?: Are you ok with adding them to css4?
16:16:10 [tantek]
Am totally ok adding them to CSS4
16:16:22 [antonp]
leif: we think they're good to add to css3
16:16:26 [tantek]
hence I've put them on the wiki page for CSS4-UI
16:16:38 [molly]
I think they're fine wherever they go so long as they go somewhere #a11y
16:16:45 [antonp]
16:16:46 [antonp]
hober: I'd rather not resolve without the editor on the call
16:16:52 [tantek]
16:16:55 [dael]
I'll drop the call if would help. I'm non-critial.
16:17:00 [tantek]
16:17:16 [SimonSapin]
florian: (?) we can’t hear you
16:17:24 [florian]
I'll type it
16:17:38 [Zakim]
16:17:43 [tantek]
I'm opposed to putting them in CSS3-UI until there's more work done on the part of those that want them like submitting the test cases for directional nav-properties.
16:18:08 [Zakim]
16:18:22 [MaRakow]
Zakim, [Microsoft] is me
16:18:22 [Zakim]
+MaRakow; got it
16:18:35 [tantek]
If that's done and the download simulator shows it clearly working, I'd strongly consider keeping directional nav-* properties in CSS3-UI but *at risk*.
16:18:37 [antonp]
leif: I'm ok with the idea that if we don't do the work then we don't include them in css3-ui
16:18:49 [molly]
Tantek: is your concern the type of implementations or lack of them?
16:18:53 [antonp]
..: but I'd like not to make that decision now before we've tried
16:19:20 [antonp]
plinss: The props are there but at risk
16:19:23 [tantek]
That is, IF we have contributed test cases, AND *ONE* implementation that is easily downloadable/testable, THEN I think it is correct to include them in CSS3-UI but *AT RISK*
16:19:25 [florian]
It was argued that these are mainly used outside of the open web. But I don't think that's relevant. If it was in conflict with stuff on the open web, that would be a point, but there is not conflict I know of, and there is nothing in our charter that restricts CSS to open web only. Importantly, if walled garden people are increasingly adopting our technology stack, we try to accomodate them, to limit the risk of them forking into something incompatible
16:19:26 [antonp]
..: so what specifically are you asking for?
16:19:32 [Zakim]
16:19:39 [antonp]
leif: The edits haven't happened yet, but they were resolved dropped.
16:19:40 [JohnJansen]
Zakim, Microsoft has JohnJansen
16:19:40 [Zakim]
+JohnJansen; got it
16:19:41 [antonp]
plinss: ok
16:20:12 [tantek]
asking for: contribute the test cases per the existing process in CSSWG for contributing test cases
16:20:20 [antonp]
hober: regarding test cases, doesn't tantek's objection disappear if you can get simulator,implementation reports, tests our
16:20:23 [antonp]
leif: yes
16:20:43 [florian]
agree with Sylvain
16:20:50 [tantek]
16:20:59 [antonp]
sylvain(?): I think your request to undo the previous resolution is reasonable; sounds like it was based on incorrect info
16:21:09 [antonp]
plinss: I agree
16:21:10 [tantek]
The reason I'm skeptical about this is that none of this has happened in the years that directional nav was previously in CR.
16:21:19 [hober]
16:21:20 [antonp]
s/hober/sylvain (earlier)#
16:21:26 [sgalineau]
tantek, it has happened; we didn't know until now that it did
16:21:26 [tantek]
It wasn't based on incorrect info, it was based on the info at the time.
16:21:32 [tantek]
Now we have newer information
16:21:39 [sgalineau]
i didn't say incorrect, i said incomplete
16:21:52 [tantek]
We can re-assess once the test cases have been contributed.
16:21:58 [antonp]
leif: afaict there's limited functionality, not much "space" to test. Think it's interoperable
16:22:07 [sgalineau]
test cases are required to exit CR
16:22:11 [florian]
Level 3 at risk sounds good to me
16:22:14 [antonp]
plinss: any objections to leaving it as risk (instead of removing)?
16:22:28 [tantek]
currently they're slated for removal
16:22:34 [antonp]
molly: what does "at risk" actually mean?
16:22:42 [tantek]
I'll hold off on those edits if there's a commitment for contributing test cases within a reasonable time frame
16:22:45 [antonp]
plinss: We can drop them without regressing from CR to LC
16:22:50 [sgalineau]
tantek, yes the are. based on incomplete info.
16:23:02 [florian]
"at risk" means "at risk of being dropped or pushed back if there are no implementations"
16:23:09 [tantek]
so any such resolution should include a time commitment for contributing the tests
16:23:28 [tantek]
retrying zakim
16:23:42 [Zakim]
16:23:57 [antonp]
plinss: acknowledge tantek's request
16:24:40 [florian]
There are already 2 implementations, as Leif said: presto and webkit
16:24:50 [antonp]
tantek: If we're able to get even one implementation and see it working then that's good enough for leaving "at risk".
16:25:16 [antonp]
plinss: was the webkit implementation done by opera as well
16:25:23 [antonp]
leif: probably not, but I'll get that confirms
16:25:30 [antonp]
16:26:05 [antonp]
plinss: I'm not hearing any objections to leaving them in "as risk"
16:26:15 [antonp]
tantek: I'd like a time commitment for submitting tests
16:26:25 [antonp]
plinss: well, that's the rec track right?
16:26:48 [antonp]
tantek: I'd like to pick a timeframe. I'm willing to be patient, but would like to hear a commitment
16:27:06 [antonp]
leif: I think we can do that within a month
16:27:25 [antonp]
tantek: OK let's wait a month. Then if no tests etc we'll drop them
16:27:48 [antonp]
RESOLUTION: leave these features at risk in level 3
16:27:55 [antonp]
ACTION leif to submit tests etc
16:27:55 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-565 - Submit tests etc [on Leif Arne Storset - due 2013-06-26].
16:28:23 [florian]
My mike doesn't work, so I'll type it. We resolved to make "not", "or", "and", and "only" invalid (rather than unknown) media types. I made the change in MQ level 4 and posted a few tests:
16:28:23 [florian]
This looks like something that should cause an errata for MQ3, but I want the group's confirmation, and I don't know the process
16:28:28 [SimonSapin]
16:28:28 [antonp]
TOPIC: Errating MQ3
16:28:43 [antonp]
16:28:56 [antonp]
SimonSapin: Goes back to Tokyo discussion
16:29:30 [tantek]
zakim, who is making noise
16:29:30 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is making noise', tantek
16:29:36 [tantek]
zakim, mute tantek
16:29:36 [Zakim]
Tantek should now be muted
16:29:42 [SimonSapin]
florian: we should errata level 3 if we agree on the changes
16:29:56 [antonp]
glazou: I think we should do the changes
16:30:02 [florian]
I'd like the group to tell me if the change I put in level 4 is fine, and if yes, someone explain the process
16:30:08 [florian]
that's the only errata
16:30:14 [tantek_]
tantek_ has joined #css
16:30:20 [antonp]
plinss: we probably don't have any errata yet for mq3?
16:30:26 [florian]
is there?
16:30:26 [dbaron]
16:30:30 [antonp]
dbaron: There's an erratum in the errata doc
16:31:05 [florian]
thanks for reminding me of the other errata
16:31:13 [antonp]
plh: Just tell me what I need to put there, and I'll put it
16:31:27 [antonp]
..: the doc isn't normative until it's folded into a new edition
16:31:44 [antonp]
plinss: you mean an ED of the spec?
16:31:49 [antonp]
plh: correct
16:31:54 [SimonSapin]
the spec header says that errata are normative …
16:31:57 [plh]
16:32:00 [florian]
I don't think there is a rush
16:32:12 [florian]
but I'd like implementers' opinion
16:32:16 [antonp]
plh: so do we fold into level 3? Or wait until level 4
16:32:20 [plh]
btw florian, your tests don't pass on IE10 either
16:32:34 [florian]
+1 to dbaron
16:32:38 [florian]
I'll try and remember
16:32:40 [glazou]
16:32:50 [antonp]
dbaron: I'm inclined to say, stick it in the errata and wait to see if any other errata crop up in the next 6 months
16:33:02 [dbaron]
dbaron: And then hopefully we'll remember to come back in 6 months.
16:33:12 [Zakim]
16:33:17 [antonp]
plinss: so we'll add it to the errata. Who will take that action?
16:33:23 [florian]
I've written if for level 4
16:33:32 [florian]
I think the same phrasing applies to level 3
16:33:36 [florian]
I'd like feedback
16:33:36 [antonp]
plh: I'm happy to add it - but someone needs to send the text
16:33:48 [antonp]
ACTION florian to send relevant prose to plh
16:33:48 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-566 - Send relevant prose to plh [on Florian Rivoal - due 2013-06-26].
16:33:57 [tantek]
leif, florian, I couldn't find the URL to the Webkit-simulator with nav-* properties
16:34:06 [tantek]
could you provide URL to email or just the simulator directly?
16:34:09 [antonp]
SimonSapin: I'd like to go back to how we do changes
16:34:42 [antonp]
..: Does a level 4 completely replace level 3? Or do we need to fix level 3?
16:34:43 [Zakim]
16:34:50 [antonp]
...: when level 4 becomes a REC
16:34:52 [antonp]
16:35:12 [antonp]
plh: I don't remember what we do to the level 3 spec in that case. Add a note to readers?
16:35:18 [florian]
we don't have any level 4 rec yet, do we?
16:35:23 [Zakim]
16:35:35 [antonp]
plinss: we don't have many level 4 yet
16:35:48 [antonp]
TOPIC: Extend !important to !<anything>*
16:35:56 [antonp]
SimonSapin: <summarizes issue>
16:36:05 [antonp]
16:37:07 [antonp]
hober (?): I don't think we should do this until we actually have a module which requires it
16:37:58 [florian]
There were two parts proposed about it, one about forward compatibility, one about an actual used of the ! for new stuff. I am ok with the first stuff, I think the later is interesting but premature
16:38:05 [antonp]
molly: I'm really concerned about this. There's already misuse and understanding due to the existing syntax choice
16:38:27 [dbaron]
dbaron (after hober): I think we want to make the values of variables general now.
16:38:51 [antonp]
hober: until we have a concrete ident-after-! it would be premature to generalize the syntax
16:39:18 [antonp]
SimonSapin: but we need to think about compat
16:39:28 [antonp]
.. <explains>
16:39:51 [antonp]
plinss: Didn't we already resolve as invalid, variables with !important?
16:40:21 [antonp]
SimonSapin: <replies>
16:40:29 [SimonSapin]
SimonSapin: we want new stuff to be invalid in older UAs
16:41:36 [SteveZ]
Doesn't this also simplify parsing of the variable value?
16:42:07 [SimonSapin]
dbaron: I want var-foo: red !type(color); to be invalid rather than have the value be "red !type(color)"
16:42:22 [SimonSapin]
16:42:30 [tantek]
+1 to Molly's and Hober's objections/concerns.
16:42:36 [antonp]
hober: I don't see why we need to generalize this so early, but I'm not going to formally object or whatever
16:43:18 [dbaron]
hober: we can just disallow ! in variables other than !important so that we can extend it later, without extending it now
16:43:19 [florian]
I approve of the proposal
16:43:23 [dbaron]
SimonSapin: That's exactly my proposal.
16:43:45 [antonp]
glazou: looking at the example, I agree with the proposal
16:43:46 [SteveZ]
+1 for Simon's proposal
16:44:11 [c_palmer]
as long as !important is still valid for a variable, I'm for it
16:44:19 [smfr]
smfr has joined #css
16:44:49 [antonp]
plinss: any objections to the proposal?
16:45:02 [glazou]
yay SimonSapin
16:45:04 [antonp]
RESOLVED: proposal accepted
16:45:23 [SimonSapin]
RESOLVED: top-level ! is invalid in Custom Properties
16:45:40 [SimonSapin]
… allowing for future extensions with similar syntax to !important
16:46:18 [glazou]
ScribeNick: molly
16:46:40 [stearns]
16:46:51 [Zakim]
16:47:03 [molly]
Topic: Paint order
16:47:17 [molly]
Alan: Describes issue
16:47:19 [glazou]
Zakim, mute me
16:47:19 [Zakim]
glazou should now be muted
16:47:41 [SimonSapin]
Topic: elementsFromPoint() and pointer-events:paint-order
16:47:48 [molly]
David: I think I'd have interest if it were clearly defined but I need to understand more
16:48:02 [molly]
Alan: I'll reply to thread with a more complete definition
16:48:03 [Zakim]
16:48:29 [molly]
David: This is good for me, but in the spec would need to be more detailed
16:48:35 [glazou]
Zakim, unmute me
16:48:35 [Zakim]
glazou should no longer be muted
16:48:36 [molly]
David: I'm okay with it
16:48:47 [molly]
Peter: Thoughts/Objections?
16:48:50 [dbaron]
(we're discussing just elementsFromPoint() so far)
16:49:30 [molly]
Alan: Will add some text for more information, and wait until we have implementations of elementesFromPoint()
16:49:44 [molly]
Peter: Seems fair enough: opinions?
16:49:54 [dbaron]
Alan: For the second part (pointer-events: paint-order), I think it makes sense to wait until we have implementations of elementsFromPoint()
16:50:05 [molly]
Peter: Resolved
16:50:25 [molly]
no objection
16:50:41 [plinss]
RESOLVED: add elementsFromPoint() to cssom-view
16:51:04 [plinss]
ACTION: stearns to propose text for elementsFromPoint
16:51:04 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-567 - Propose text for elementsFromPoint [on Alan Stearns - due 2013-06-26].
16:51:12 [glazou]
16:51:32 [molly]
Topic: Multiple Subject Indicators
16:51:40 [molly]
Glazou: Describing issue
16:52:09 [molly]
Glazou: Two possibilities - first if multiple, only last wins OR
16:52:16 [molly]
didn't catch that
16:52:26 [SimonSapin]
glazou: or all of them match
16:52:50 [dbaron]
I'd prefer either (a) or (c) in ; I don't like (b).
16:52:51 [molly]
Fantasai: I think it makes more sense if all of them match
16:53:09 [molly]
Glazou: it's an implementation change so I want to hear from implementors
16:53:18 [molly]
David: I might be missing something here
16:53:25 [SimonSapin]
s/Fantasai/leaverou/ ?
16:53:37 [molly]
Glazou and Dbaron - syntactic sugar discussion
16:53:46 [glazou]
16:54:04 [molly]
Peter: Is anyone implementing yet?
16:54:17 [tantek_]
tantek_ has joined #css
16:54:31 [dbaron]
Lea: It's just syntactic sugar.
16:54:56 [molly]
Glazou: put in selectors4
16:54:57 [dbaron]
dbaron: It might (depending on implementation) require implementations to remap the syntax, which is a bit of a pain, but hard to know.
16:55:13 [molly]
Peter: Resolved
16:55:52 [plinss]
RESOLVED: multiple subject selectors allowed and all match
16:56:03 [molly]
RESOLVED place Multiple Subject Indicator matching in Selectors Level 4
16:56:20 [plinss]
16:57:21 [molly]
Discussing Cross-Origin Style Sheets
16:57:34 [dbaron]
dbaron: I think people who are interested should go review the change.
16:57:58 [molly]
Peter: Anyone else?
16:58:45 [dbaron]
Simon: Please look at the issue in agenda item (A) on the mailing list.
16:58:56 [SimonSapin]
A. [css-backgrounds] Painting area and 'background-attachment: local'
16:58:56 [SimonSapin]
16:58:57 [Zakim]
16:58:58 [Zakim]
16:58:59 [antonp]
Thanks for taking over the scribing, Molly! My line was terrible; couldn't hear half the group
16:59:07 [Zakim]
16:59:07 [Zakim]
16:59:07 [Zakim]
16:59:07 [Zakim]
16:59:07 [Zakim]
16:59:07 [Zakim]
16:59:07 [Zakim]
16:59:07 [Zakim]
16:59:07 [Zakim]
16:59:08 [Zakim]
16:59:08 [Zakim]
16:59:08 [Zakim]
16:59:08 [Zakim]
16:59:10 [Zakim]
16:59:11 [Zakim]
16:59:11 [Zakim]
16:59:13 [Zakim]
16:59:15 [Zakim]
16:59:20 [Zakim]
16:59:23 [BradK]
BradK has left #css
16:59:48 [SimonSapin]
dbaron: looked at Syntax yet ? :)
17:00:03 [Zakim]
17:00:22 [leif]
RRSAgent, please make minutes
17:00:22 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate leif
17:04:20 [glazou]
FWIW, I now have UI for font-feature-settings in BlueGriffon
17:05:03 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, [IPcaller], in Style_CSS FP()12:00PM
17:05:06 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
17:05:06 [Zakim]
Attendees were florian, plinss, +1.206.675.aaaa, Plh, sgalineau, glazou, Stearns, BradK, +93192aabb, antonp, +1.212.318.aacc, +1.610.324.aadd, Lea, jerenkrantz_, dael, SimonSapin,
17:05:07 [Zakim]
... +47.23.69.aaee, leif, Molly_Holzschlag, dbaron, Krit, shezbaig_wk, hober, SteveZ, JohnJansen, c_palmer, MaRakow, Tantek
17:05:59 [leif]
leif has left #css
17:07:58 [leif]
leif has joined #css
17:08:10 [leif]
leif has left #css
17:17:04 [SimonSapin]
17:17:36 [TabAtkins]
Yup, saw that. I'll make the edit shortly.
17:17:45 [SimonSapin]
17:17:58 [TabAtkins]
Except that !important is, of course, allowed.
17:18:15 [TabAtkins]
(And stripped out by the parser.)
17:18:38 [SimonSapin]
yeah, it’s removed and accounted for before we get to dealing with custom proporties
17:28:45 [leaverou]
TabAtkins: hi, are the minutes from the f2f published anywhere yet? Is there any draft I could look at?
17:29:23 [TabAtkins]
leaverou: I don't think so. You can check out the logs that krijn has, or the auto-generated minutes (but I forget how to access those).
17:29:45 [leaverou]
TabAtkins: thanks!
17:30:50 [SimonSapin]
for the generated stuff start with and try changing the date
17:31:24 [SimonSapin]
The F2F was June 5-7
17:31:50 [leaverou]
thanks SimonSapin!
17:32:16 [SimonSapin]
leaverou: thoughts on background-attachment:local vs. background-clip?
17:32:27 [leaverou]
SimonSapin: lemme take a look
17:33:58 [leaverou]
SimonSapin: "Note: This means that 'background-clip: border-box' is indistinguishable from 'padding-box'." Why?
17:34:30 [SimonSapin]
if 'overflow: (not visible)' clips at padding box, like it does for content
17:34:32 [leaverou]
I can think of ways to paint it under the border too
17:35:00 [leaverou]
SimonSapin: is that how existing implementations behave?
17:35:27 [SimonSapin]
I’ll have to double-check, but I think there is no interop
17:35:49 [SimonSapin]
on eg. background-clip: content-box; background-attachment: local
17:36:51 [SimonSapin]
we *could* have 'overflow' clip backgrounds at the border-box instead, but the inconsistency with content such as text is weird
17:38:48 [leaverou]
SimonSapin: what inconsistency?
17:39:40 [SimonSapin]
scrolled text and scrolled background (with attachment: local) being clipped on different rectangels
17:40:12 [SimonSapin]
assuming overflow: scroll/auto/hidden
17:40:26 [leaverou]
SimonSapin: huh, so WebKit does what you're saying
17:40:51 [leaverou]
which is very weird, because it's different than both the other values
17:40:52 [leaverou]
17:41:40 [arno]
arno has joined #css
17:41:46 [SimonSapin]
background-attachment: local basically moves the image inside the scrolling thing
17:42:14 [SimonSapin]
you don’t see scrolled text behind the border
17:44:04 [SimonSapin]
leaverou: see with 'background-clip: content-box' the content-box rectangle also scrolls with the content
17:47:17 [leaverou]
SimonSapin: it could still scroll, underneath the border
17:47:27 [SimonSapin]
it could
17:47:35 [SimonSapin]
but that would be inconsistent with how the text is clipped
17:47:37 [leaverou]
and you'd just see a part of it
17:47:59 [leaverou]
I could see cases where that "inconsistency" is intentional
17:48:44 [SimonSapin]
I could live with that either way
17:48:57 [krit]
krit has joined #css
17:48:59 [SimonSapin]
I’m more interested in content-box scrolling with the content
17:49:20 [SimonSapin]
rather than doing this
17:51:05 [SimonSapin]
which is what Presto does
17:53:06 [SimonSapin]
… and IE too
17:53:51 [tantek]
tantek has joined #css
17:56:50 [smfr]
smfr has left #css
17:56:56 [leaverou]
SimonSapin: huh, yeah, that's obvious
17:57:15 [SimonSapin]
leaverou: anyway, I would appreciate a comment one way or another on www-style, so far this thread is a bit of a monologue :)
17:57:26 [leaverou]
SimonSapin: ok, will do!
17:57:30 [SimonSapin]
18:01:55 [arno]
arno has joined #css
18:06:32 [leaverou]
SimonSapin: btw, I couldn't find the minutes :(
18:06:36 [leaverou]
any URL I tried didn't work
18:07:54 [Ms2ger]
leaverou, ?
18:08:11 [leaverou]
Ms2ger: that's for today
18:08:19 [SimonSapin]
18:08:24 [SimonSapin]
then change 05 to 06 and 07
18:08:30 [leaverou]
SimonSapin: oooooh, it needed a leading zero
18:08:32 [leaverou]
that explains it
18:08:37 [Ms2ger]
Couldn't tell from what you were saying what you needed :)
18:08:43 [SimonSapin]
18:09:16 [leaverou]
thanks Simon!
18:09:41 [SimonSapin]
the latter logs all the time, not just meetings
18:17:46 [SimonSapin1]
SimonSapin1 has joined #css
18:38:25 [arno]
arno has joined #css
18:44:11 [krit]
krit has joined #css
18:46:19 [cabanier]
cabanier has joined #css
18:51:44 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
18:53:01 [zcorpan]
zcorpan has joined #css
19:00:24 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #css
19:28:00 [SimonSapin]
SimonSapin has joined #css
20:01:44 [SimonSapin]
SimonSapin has joined #css
20:20:33 [cabanier]
cabanier has joined #css
20:31:27 [tobie]
tobie has joined #css
20:37:41 [zcorpan]
zcorpan has joined #css
20:40:01 [zcorpan_]
zcorpan_ has joined #css
20:48:31 [zcorpan]
zcorpan has joined #css
21:19:08 [zcorpan]
zcorpan has joined #css
22:23:56 [cabanier]
cabanier has joined #css
22:33:19 [tobie]
tobie has joined #css
23:32:18 [sgalineau]
sgalineau has joined #css
23:44:30 [zcorpan]
zcorpan has joined #css