16:25:19 RRSAgent has joined #css 16:25:19 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/02/26-css-irc 16:25:26 Zakim, this will be Style 16:25:26 ok, glazou; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 35 minutes 16:25:33 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:26:56 gregwhitworth has joined #CSS 16:26:57 rhauck has joined #css 16:33:03 dbaron has joined #css 16:39:23 MaRakow has joined #CSS 16:44:51 Oh yeah, agenda request if we have time - further discussion on the /shadow/ vs ::shadow topic. 16:45:04 Put Simon in front of me, though. 16:49:37 noted TabAtkins 16:49:59 and I think we have plenty of time, the agenda is a bit empty this week 16:54:51 zcorpan has joined #css 16:56:07 dael has joined #css 16:57:21 Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started 16:57:29 +[Microsoft] 16:57:57 +dael 16:58:01 +??P12 16:58:06 Zakim, ??P12 is me 16:58:06 +glazou; got it 16:58:28 dauwhe has joined #css 16:59:09 +dauwhe 16:59:31 smfr has joined #css 16:59:54 +krit 16:59:57 +MaRakow 17:00:27 +Stearns 17:00:45 +??P7 17:00:46 florian has joined #css 17:00:51 Zakim, ??P7 is me 17:00:52 +SimonSapin; got it 17:01:08 [Microsoft] is me 17:01:21 +Plh 17:01:26 +[IPcaller] 17:01:31 +rhauck 17:01:32 +hober 17:01:33 +dbaron 17:01:34 Zakim, [IPcaller] has me 17:01:34 +florian; got it 17:01:35 +fantasai 17:01:42 +plinss 17:01:49 +smfr 17:02:33 + +1.281.305.aaaa 17:02:36 +[Microsoft.a] 17:02:46 +BrianKardell 17:02:47 zakim, aaaa is me 17:02:47 +TabAtkins; got it 17:02:50 possible me 17:02:58 +Bert 17:03:01 Rossen_ has joined #css 17:03:07 glazou: Let's start 17:03:09 sgalineau has joined #css 17:03:10 antonp has joined #css 17:03:13 -TabAtkins 17:03:13 zakim, microsoft has me 17:03:14 koji has joined #css 17:03:14 +Rossen_; got it 17:03:15 I'll call back. 17:03:16 ChrisL has joined #css 17:03:17 +[Microsoft.aa] 17:03:19 glazou: Any extra items? 17:03:21 bkardell_ has joined #css 17:03:32 ...: I noted one from Tab about showdow vs ::shadow? 17:03:33 +SylvaIng 17:03:36 + +1.860.479.aabb 17:03:42 glazou: We have a light agneda so may have time for me 17:03:50 Topic: CSS 2.1 ED 17:04:01 SimonSapin: So when working on impl for CSS2 17:04:03 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2014JanMar/0139.html 17:04:14 ...: I would like it to be up to date including the errata items 17:04:18 http://www.w3.org/Style/css2-updates/css2/ 17:04:23 +??P36 17:04:24 tantek has joined #css 17:04:28 ...: It seems we have a ED but I'm not sure if it's really up to date 17:04:38 ...: If it's not, can we make it so? 17:04:46 Zakim, P36 is me 17:04:46 sorry, antonp, I do not recognize a party named 'P36' 17:04:52 +TabAtkins 17:04:54 ??: Bert? 17:05:01 s/??/plh 17:05:02 +koji 17:05:03 +??P4 17:05:09 SimonSapin: Is this a snapshot or up to datE? 17:05:09 s/??/plh/ 17:05:12 https://www.w3.org/Style/Group/css2-src/ 17:05:17 Zakim, ??P36 is me 17:05:17 +antonp; got it 17:05:20 bert: This is a snaptshop. The real version is aboev 17:05:30 ...: That's the ED and has been for 50 years or so 17:05:33 -[Microsoft.aa] 17:05:39 lol 17:05:43 wow... 50 years?! 17:05:44 :) 17:05:45 http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work 17:05:46 SimonSapin: So that URL...I think it would be beneficial for a public WD just like other docs 17:05:55 SimonSapin: Listed on current work 17:06:03 bert: I don't think it's useful to have public 17:06:06 -[Microsoft] 17:06:22 ???: We're charted as a public group so we should have everything public. Please move it 17:06:28 glazou: CSS errata is part of charter 17:06:35 s/???/ChrisL/ 17:06:36 s/???/ChrisL 17:06:49 bert: I don't like moving doc because we'd lose 15 years of history. If we do, I don't want to move to mercurial b/c it's a pain. 17:06:53 q+ 17:07:14 simonsapin: It's possible to import the history. We don't have to lose it. 17:07:17 do we really have to argue about the desire to have a member-only draft for this thing? 17:07:24 plh: Why don't you move it to ?? instead of mercurial 17:07:26 ar has joined #css 17:07:28 berT: I don't know if that's easier 17:07:38 s/??/Github 17:07:46 plh: The community around it is much larger. The this is mercurial doesn't have as many cycles. 17:07:53 plinss: Our mercurial is mirrored. 17:07:59 plh: Ok. that could work 17:08:22 fantasai: I think all our drafts should be in same repository so it makes easier to help...I don't think we should have one this in github 17:08:34 bert: I think github is easier, but I don't want to move everything 17:08:47 glazou: To put CSS 2.1 on mercurial we have to import the history 17:08:55 s/glazou/florian 17:09:02 s/one this/just this one/ 17:09:17 ???: So the proposal is to import into mercurial, even though we don't love mercurial. And maybe we should later consider moving elsewhere. 17:09:27 florian^: I prefer git as well, but also think having everything in one place is more important 17:09:32 s/???/florian/ 17:09:45 s/easier to help/easier for editors to help each other/ 17:10:06 ChrisL: you were quite clear as far as I am concerned 17:10:17 tantek, until someone asks to add an email client, per jwz law 17:10:21 If it helps, I can do the work of importing the change history from the CSV repository (given access) 17:10:31 zakim, who's noisy? 17:10:39 glazou: So Bert is it okay with you if SimonSapin helps you? 17:10:43 TabAtkins, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: glazou (28%), [IPcaller] (4%), fantasai (4%), Bert (61%), TabAtkins (19%) 17:10:48 :) 17:11:08 Zakim, mute TabAtkins 17:11:08 TabAtkins should now be muted 17:11:12 ...: It seems like it's concensous fromt he WG 17:11:25 bert: If someone can make a respoitory on mercurial, I don't know how to do that. 17:11:26 Man, am I still the problem? I switched phones! 17:11:31 zakim, unmute TabAtkins 17:11:31 TabAtkins should no longer be muted 17:11:48 bert: only get errors when I use that one, I have a different one for this draft. 17:11:55 ???: I have no idea how that happens. 17:12:00 glazou: I never get an error. 17:12:03 rhauck1 has joined #css 17:12:25 glazou: Wait...switching isn't the discussion. The question is moving to or from repo. 17:12:27 Another thing is the build system for this document 17:12:36 s/moving/moving the CSS2.1 document/ 17:12:44 ??: I was agreeing. Mercurial might be great, but it's what we've got 17:12:53 s/??/florian 17:12:57 glazou: Bert, I'm sorry, but it's mercurial and SimonSapin will help. 17:13:12 ...: so it's an action on SimonSapin to help with hints from bert 17:13:14 s/might be great/might not be everybody's favorite/ 17:13:21 bert: I don't like losing history...the link will be gone. 17:13:44 bert: it's member only so we can't put the history in the public. We're not going to look through for confidential stuff 17:13:50 The plan is to import *only* CSS2 17:14:02 no anything else that might be in the same repo 17:14:07 zakim, who is noisy 17:14:07 I don't understand 'who is noisy', TabAtkins 17:14:08 Zakim, who is making noise? 17:14:11 zakim, who is noisy? 17:14:21 hober, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: SimonSapin (30%), glazou (9%), krit (4%), fantasai (4%) 17:14:31 TabAtkins, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P4 (15%), glazou (81%), krit (4%), fantasai (4%) 17:14:38 q+ 17:14:40 glazou: ChrisL is there problem making things in the cvs go public? 17:15:03 ChrisL: technically yes, but in practice the comment history...the only point that might be unknown is since css 2.1 was published. 17:15:19 It’s also possible to truncate the import at some date 17:15:21 ...: So in practice I don't see anything memebr only. It will be why changes were made. I can't think of anything that might be hard. 17:15:40 ...: Bert thinks there might. We either copy with our without comments. Either way it's public so people can look 17:16:02 plh: We don't know what's in that history. Some companies might have something int he reposity. I know what dev comments can be. 17:16:23 ...:aybe allow people to look that are on members only. Let them say if they have concerns. If we don't hear anything we publish 17:16:28 ...: That would help. 17:16:30 sounds like a good plan 17:16:44 glazou: It's unfortunate to wait, but it's a good comprimise. I don't want ACs to fall because this decision 17:16:52 plh: In two weeks people can speak up. 17:16:58 glazou: I hope it can be 1 week 17:17:10 Rossen: Are you expecting something? 17:17:37 glazou: In theory everyone should look for contriversial or problematic that needs to hide. If everyone doesn't have a problem that's fine, but we have former members. 17:17:50 ...: I know it sounds stupid, but b/c the way we used to work we need to do this. 17:17:55 ...: If we want the whole history. 17:18:12 ???: I'd suggest 2 weeks. It's lots of history. 17:18:19 is there an open format for change histories / commit logs? a little export/import action? 17:18:19 s/???/florian/ 17:18:23 glazou: I'd like to close this. Is everyone okay with plh's idea. 17:18:25 +Lea 17:18:46 glazou: Bert, can you download the comments and send it to the private mailing list for everyone to review? 17:18:54 bert: You want me to download allt he comments? 17:19:01 glazou: In a CVS 17:19:13 plh: I'm willing to take an action item to do it 17:19:22 glazou: You may want to deal witht he former members. 17:19:27 plh: Let's do it proper. 17:19:32 q+ about the build system 17:19:45 glazou: Let's do it in two weeks. If we don't hear anything in two weeks, we bring all the comments over. 17:20:08 SimonSapin: As I understand, the form for CSS 2.1...all the preveious itterations are a part of it. I don't know what we want to move here. 17:20:30 bert: The build is profiles written by Arnold and ??? and me. I don't know what's in the history of those. 17:20:38 lmclister has joined #css 17:20:42 SimonSapin: Do we need to understand how it works, or just copy over as is? 17:20:54 glazou: In short, is the sourse format compat with new system. 17:20:54 Simon was saying that the build system for CSS2.1 is a different system than the ones we use for the CSS3 drafts, and he's not sure what's involved for moving it 17:21:08 bert: No. The way we did it back then was complex. Same things, different ways. 17:21:21 bert: It's in the same directories, everything is there. 17:21:33 - +1.860.479.aabb 17:21:47 glazou: We have two weeks. SimonSapin will you take that time to look in CVS director and see what you can do? 17:22:01 SimonSapin: Ok. 17:22:13 glazou: So, rpoposed recolution. plh will do the log over the next two weeks. If no obj SimonSapin will move CVS to mercurial. Ok? 17:22:33 RESOLVED: see above 17:22:38 rhauck has joined #css 17:22:55 glazou: One more thing. There's discussion on charter milestones. Charles proposed a change that wasn't in line with WG opinion. 17:23:17 ...: I rejected it because I didn't think it was right. I'll ask you to write something to replace his prose 17:23:21 rhauck has joined #css 17:23:24 ??: Do you have a link? 17:23:33 glazou: I'll see. It may be private. 17:23:35 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Feb/0517.html 17:23:42 Topic: MQ3 errata 17:23:58 florian: We've discussed and resolved to make these changes, but no one has done it. 17:24:07 waybe editor of MQ4 can do it? 17:24:13 ...: Can we action someone to make the changes? There's not much to discuss. 17:24:30 florian: I'm the editor in MQ4, but I don't have access to MQ3. 17:24:45 s/MQ3/MQ3 errata 17:24:58 bert: I think ChrisL has made some, I may have too 17:25:10 ChrisL: If it's just publishing, tell me where and I'll make sure it gets done. 17:25:22 florian: That should be the link that was pasted above in IRC. 17:25:29 ...: I can clarify any questions 17:25:33 glazou: Is that okay? 17:25:42 ChrisL: Yes. I see the link from glazou? That one? 17:25:45 glazou: Yes. 17:25:53 florian: And if anything isn't clear, jsut tell me 17:25:59 rhauck1 has joined #css 17:26:00 Topic: Font Loading LC 17:26:03 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2014JanMar/0162.html 17:26:21 TabAtkins: You remember from Paris it was nearly done. It got feedback from jdagget 17:26:37 ...: I forgot to pub the FPWD until last week. Still I think it's mature and has been reviewed. 17:26:46 which other implementors have reviewed it? 17:26:51 ...: I think it's stable and ready, go to LC, gather remaining feedback and do the edits. 17:26:55 arronei has joined #css 17:27:04 ChrisL: So this is fairly brief, but this was previously CSS3 fonts, right? 17:27:09 TabAtkins: I don't recall 17:27:18 dbaron: It was, yes, although it was brief 17:27:26 TabAtkins: That was the old form, but yes. 17:27:42 ChrisL: If you think it's stable, put it forward,a nd and people disagree they'll let you know 17:27:54 TabAtkins: We do LC when we're done with design and we're done with design 17:28:14 glazou: On the website there's two issues in the doc. Shouldn't they resoved b4 last call? 17:28:17 ChrisL: Yes. 17:28:22 TabAtkins: I can go resolve today 17:28:29 glazou: One is technical so we need time to review 17:28:35 TabAtkins: Let me pull them up quick 17:28:54 florian: Is it something we can discuss without prep? 17:29:11 TabAtkins 2 issues. One is what the font-face does for works. I'ts basically done and just needs text 17:29:43 ...: 2nd is about local fonts. I think it's easy and can be resolved. I just need to ignore them. The issue is do we need a special feature and I think we don't and we just drop it. 17:29:57 fantasai: Has John Dagget done a really complete review like typo style? 17:30:00 TabAtkins: Yes. 17:30:12 fantasai: Did other people? Did they find anything? 17:30:15 TabAtkins: Yes 17:30:26 ???: We looked at it but not that much depth. 17:30:31 ...: I'm passing it on for more. 17:30:36 s/???/rosen/ 17:30:37 s/???/rosssen 17:30:45 glazou: So do you need more time? 17:30:49 Rossen_: Let's get a week 17:31:03 glazou: Let's defer for a week so there's a bit mroe review and TabAtkins can edit. 17:31:19 Topic: CSS Masking 17:31:35 krit_: There was a new WD pub two weeks ago. That was for more feedback. 17:31:49 ..: I'd like to remind people to look before we go to LC so we find as many issues as poss. 17:32:08 ...: fantasai had some issues from first LC and I think I resolved them, but it would be great if she could look again 17:32:16 fantasai: Thanks for the reminder. 17:32:26 Topic: ShadowDOM 17:32:45 TabAtkins: I've been talking over fantasai suggestion from last week about switching to pseudo elements 17:32:53 ...: Mostly okay. For shadow and content it works. 17:33:11 ...: Only one with shadow-z??? because it doesn't corrispond to anything real. 17:33:34 ...: fantasai explained it as switching to a vertural tree, but that is weird 17:33:51 ...: It wouldn't match anything is CSS. Potentially queries could returnt he shadow roots. 17:34:08 ...: We're uncomfortable with makeing that as pseudo. We want that as combinator 17:34:13 s/z???/deep 17:34:28 ...: Then it seems odd for them to be sometimes pseudo, sometimes combeinators. 17:34:56 fantasai: I'm not convinced shadow deep needs to be a combinator because there could be something in the DOM. It's a thing you can talk about and define as existing 17:35:09 ...: That our DOM isn't structured shouldn't change the CSS syntax 17:35:15 TabAtkins: But we'll never have a DOM thing for that 17:35:38 fantasai: But it exists as a concept. So our syntax shouldn't be restricted. We should chose from conceptual consistancy 17:35:59 ???: The showdow root looks okay, but shadow deep root doesn't make sense as a thing to talk about instead of nesting roots 17:36:18 TabAtkins: We talk about the compsed tree, not something rooted at a psot. So shadow deep doesn't exist. 17:36:29 fantasai: What's you're doing is a sub tree of the tree 17:36:38 ???: It's a tree, though, real or conceptual. 17:37:01 fantasai: If you're talking about foo, it's great neice may have a shadow, but you wouldn't reach it 17:37:18 TabAtkins: My problem is this may let us define everything as a pseudo instead of combinator 17:37:23 fantasai: I don't think so 17:37:33 maybe if you end a selector with a bang(!) it means you really mean it and it crosses all boundaries 17:37:37 TabAtkins: The reference combinator could be seen as something hanging off in an alt tree. 17:37:53 fantasai: No. There's a connection, but no one is making a diff tree for the child 17:38:04 fantasai: There's no child/parent there. It's just a link 17:38:11 TabAtkins: But that's all parent child is. It's just a link 17:38:17 fantasai: That's too abstract. 17:38:21 TabAtkins: I think your is too 17:38:36 ???: psuedo is supposed to select the who tree. a pseudo element, not the whole tree 17:38:39 tantek, get us two beers instead so we can watch the fight 17:38:51 rhauck has joined #css 17:38:55 ...: So we can define it as the root instead of the whole tree. I thinkt he concept is a bit off 17:39:05 TabAtkins: Youc an map it to whatever element is hanging off 17:39:14 TabAtkins: The tree isn't exposed. It won't be in any way 17:39:18 fantasai: It's the first element 17:39:28 TabAtkins: We plan to expose it more 17:39:33 s/It's the first element/neither is ::first-line/ 17:39:48 ??: Is there any reason you'd need to piece some. Or do you intend to piece everything? 17:40:03 TabAtkins: If you only want to grab foo-button that's a decentant of some thing. 17:40:10 s/??/bkardell 17:40:23 rhauck2 has joined #css 17:40:27 he is often on the phone 17:40:37 TabAtkins: I think we should be more judicious to what we expose as pseudo since it could be returned as java 17:40:47 ...: that seems to be a reasonable rule 17:40:55 s/since it/to things that/ 17:40:58 s/java/javascript/ 17:41:01 sgalineau: lol, bkardell has spoken the last three confs :-p usually attributed to hober 17:41:02 ...: attr have that. Some representation of the dom. Shadow, roots, work that way 17:41:15 ...: I don't think an element in the tree can be exposed usefully 17:41:30 ...: I don't htink it's an ultimate node in a tree. and that's a pseudo element. 17:41:52 TabAtkins: So...what do we do now? 17:42:13 TabAtkins: Before we knife fight, any other opinions? 17:42:27 bkardell_: Are you planning on getting together for this? 17:42:29 fantasai: Yes. 17:42:38 s/bkardell/rossen 17:42:46 rossen: I think we'd be interested in being there too. 17:42:57 ??: think the conceptual is a bit off. 17:43:05 s/??/florian 17:43:09 fantasai: I'm worried that things like regions would be off from shadow dom 17:43:21 TabAtkins: well and who knows what pages will use 17:43:32 s/dom/dom for esoteric reasons we discuss here/ 17:43:41 florian: I'd rather have actual consistancy then with things that are psuedo elements. 17:43:55 glazou: Will you report to ML about the meeting? 17:43:58 TabAtkins: Yeah. 17:44:12 TabAtkins: Was that the last thing? 17:44:14 glazou: Yes. 17:44:31 TabAtkins: I have a q. There's been a lot of counter styles. 17:44:43 s/then with things that are/than theoretical explanations about what should be/ 17:44:58 ...: WE've been unable to agree and I'm going to have to regect in in DoC. Do we need a resolution for that? 17:45:01 fantasai: Yes. 17:45:08 s/regct/reject/ 17:45:19 TabAtkins: The Counter sytles draft has a number of ways for one to refer to another. that means there's a poss of loops 17:45:25 s/Yes./Yes. Anything resulting in a significant change ro significant rejection should be discussed./ 17:45:44 ...: The 3 places you can loop is counter style fallback, the speakout value, and in the override. 17:45:51 ...: The override is the one under q 17:46:07 ...: having a cycle isn't an error. it's useful to have counter styles that fall to eachother for diff values. 17:46:25 ...: speakout doesn't do that. If there's an error it defaults. 17:46:43 ...: There aren't any use cases for cycle to be useful and I think it should creat an error. 17:47:14 ...: ?? Has said that there shouldn't be cycles and they could be needed. Only if a given descriotor goes intoa loop should we create a default 17:47:15 np smfr 17:47:20 -smfr 17:47:38 ...: ONly time that's useful is when creating a compression. It seems like a silly trick and nota reasonable use case. 17:47:42 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Feb/0523.html 17:48:17 TabAtkins: ?? Main arguement against my position is that it req cycle checking hich is an abstract issue, but we already require it for fallback loops. 17:48:25 ...: So it doesn't seem an undo amount of work. 17:48:45 glazou: I guess you've explained well. TabAtkins recommends to reject comments. 17:48:59 I'm here; I don't really have an opinion since I don't have a good sense of what override is used for. 17:48:59 SimonSapin: It's without a use case so we should pick the simplier. 17:49:25 TabAtkins: I think they're both equally complex. It's a matter of if you look at scriptor at use time or late. I think they're equivallent. 17:49:34 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Feb/0729.html 17:49:35 florian: In that case, why do you prefer yours? 17:49:40 s/SimonSapin/??/ 17:49:54 TabAtkins: Generally we treat things known to be errors as something to kill instead of something to repair. 17:50:02 glazou: dbaron you there? fantasai wanted your feedback 17:50:14 dbaron: I don't have a good sense of what override is used for so no opinion 17:50:27 TabAtkins: It's for when a counter style is alsmot right and you just want to tweek a little. 17:50:30 uniqname has joined #css 17:50:43 +??P20 17:50:52 Zakim, ??P20 is tantek 17:50:52 +tantek; got it 17:50:57 dbaron: are you req. cycle detection in one descriptor, or multile? 17:51:04 Zakim, mute tantek 17:51:05 tantek should now be muted 17:51:23 TabAtkins: currently req is speakout. The override is within themselves. If there's a cycle detected we switch to override decimal 17:51:48 dbaron: What if you want to know what it's spoken as. b overrides a and a has a speakout to b 17:51:58 TabAtkins: so B has a speakout to a and a is overriding b. 17:52:18 Maybe override isn't a very good name? It's not actually overriding the named style, just creating a new one based off it afaict....... 17:52:25 TabAtkins: That should be fine. There's no odd cycle there. The missing discriptor takes on the default and it'll speak as. 17:52:30 dbaron: a overrides b 17:52:47 TabAtkins: so A will say I'm missing the speakout. It'll grab from be. so a will have speakout a as well 17:52:59 s/speakout/speak-as/g 17:53:05 ...: So you looka t speak as as auto. So b looks at it and says I'm auto as well. 17:53:13 dbaron: Okay. 17:53:33 TabAtkins: I made sure the things the refer to each other are at different levels so you can process in order and have it work 17:53:47 glazou: After that, what do people think? Should we reject the comment? 17:54:00 ??: To clarify, what you're proposing to reject is the override 17:54:29 TabAtkins: Yes. his proposal is to let cycles happen. If a loop happens, default that one decriptor, but let the rest take the value from there. 17:54:37 ??: Your position makes sense. 17:55:08 plinss: The proposal makes more sense, but I'ld liket o be consistant. If the author defines and it works 99% of the time, the 1&% seems a surprise. 17:55:08 s/??/plinss 17:55:35 zcorpan has joined #css 17:55:42 TabAtkins: If the counter sytles create a problem, we take care of that. The other is if descriptors create a look you get odd results. 17:55:51 dbaron: I think plinss is talking about fallback. 17:56:12 -hober 17:56:14 TabAtkins: There's no problem with fallback cycles. It renders as decimals if you literally cannot render in another form. 17:56:28 ...: I think it's resonable to recover there so you don't negate the entire thing 17:56:46 plinss: I'd rather things only fail when they need to and have everything be consistant. 17:56:54 ...: But I don't want to complicate everything 17:57:02 plh: The proposals don't change when, but how. 17:57:22 ...: The loop will be detected in both. Do we invalidate everything in loop, or only some. 17:57:31 ...: Either way we detect the loop. 17:57:33 s/plh/Florian/ 17:57:34 TabAtkins: That's correct. 17:57:49 florian: Do we keep the thing that could be resolver despite the loop 17:58:07 TabAtkins: I recommend that b/c it's going to be an error, kill the overrides entirely. 17:58:17 +1 17:58:18 Rossen_: I support TabAtkins that sounds most sane. 17:58:21 glazou: Me too. 17:58:27 glazou: We have 1 minute left. 17:58:42 glazou: A resolution would be useful. Can we live with TabAtkins proposal? 17:58:49 fantasai: works for me 17:58:51