15:45:58 RRSAgent has joined #css 15:45:58 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/09/24-css-irc 15:46:34 glazou has changed the topic to: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Sep/0357.html 15:46:46 Zakim, this will be Style 15:46:46 ok, glazou; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 14 minutes 15:46:56 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:48:34 Zakim, code? 15:48:34 the conference code is 78953 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), glazou 15:48:58 zcorpan has joined #css 15:55:32 MaRakow has joined #CSS 15:56:54 Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started 15:57:01 +plinss 15:57:38 dael has joined #css 15:57:50 gregwhitworth has joined #css 15:58:27 ScribeNick: dael 15:58:50 +[Microsoft] 15:59:00 Zakim, Microsoft has me 15:59:00 +gregwhitworth; got it 15:59:04 + +1.917.934.aaaa 15:59:28 + +1.479.764.aabb 15:59:31 +dael 16:00:09 + +93192aacc 16:00:12 +dauwhe 16:00:16 Zakim, aacc is me 16:00:16 +antonp; got it 16:00:25 -dael 16:00:28 q- 16:00:34 ack 16:00:38 Zakim, I am + 1.479.764.aabb 16:00:38 I don't understand 'I am + 1.479.764.aabb', florian 16:00:38 +dael 16:00:46 mikesherov has joined #css 16:00:51 Zakim, I am +1.479.764.aabb 16:00:52 +florian; got it 16:01:03 q? 16:01:03 murakami has joined #css 16:01:09 q- 16:01:16 q= 16:01:21 queue= 16:01:49 + +33.1.39.21.aadd 16:01:56 Zakim, aadd is me 16:01:56 +glazou; got it 16:02:10 +[Microsoft.a] 16:02:28 +??P34 16:02:39 Rossen_ has joined #css 16:02:40 zakim, ??P34 is me 16:02:40 +murakami; got it 16:02:48 +[IPcaller] 16:02:54 +hober 16:03:02 alex_antennahouse has joined #css 16:03:20 + +1.631.398.aaee 16:03:39 +krit 16:04:08 - +1.917.934.aaaa 16:04:22 +TabAtkins 16:04:45 zakim, microsoft is me 16:04:46 +Rossen_; got it 16:05:01 + +1.917.934.aaff 16:05:12 +dbaron 16:05:43 plinss: Let's start 16:05:50 plinss: Any additions to the agenda? 16:05:53 anyone using SIP? 16:05:58 plinss: I'll take that as a no 16:06:00 Zakim not responding for me 16:06:06 Topic: Joint meeting with dpub 16:06:18 dauwhe: I didn't know what the proceedure is to set this up. 16:06:26 plinss: Doens't matter as long as we know. 16:06:45 dauwhe: They're interested in the box tree stuff. dpub has a force on dom pagination or something like that 16:06:49 let me call again, I hear nothing at all 16:06:50 dauwhe: They're at the end of the week and we're att he beginning. 16:06:51 -glazou 16:07:00 plinss: Are there times they were available or would be better? 16:07:04 dauwhe: I'll ask them. 16:07:15 plinss: Anyone in our group that wants to be there but has time restrictions? 16:07:24 Rossen_: I think it would be good to see what they want to bring 16:07:26 me 16:07:32 + +aagg 16:07:35 plinss: Invite them to our normal or use our breakout time? 16:07:40 +glazou 16:07:45 Zakim, +aagg is me 16:07:45 +SimonSapin; got it 16:07:59 I'm fine with taking a bit of normal time if necessary. 16:08:03 ???: I would say the breakout time is longer and that's a good way to use it. 16:08:04 + +1.206.992.aahh 16:08:15 Zakim, aahh is me 16:08:15 +MaRakow; got it 16:08:18 +Vivien 16:08:29 s/???/dauwhe/ 16:08:33 dauwhe: THat's what I thought. Some people in dpub were worried that people wouldn't follow the schedule and use the breakout time for reglar, but I think this is a great use of the time. 16:08:39 dbaron: I thinkt he AC meeting is also in that time. 16:08:52 Zakim, +1.917.934.aaff is me 16:08:52 +mikesherov; got it 16:08:56 plinss: I think that's Tuesday. Looks like Monday breakout is good to suggest. 16:09:00 dauwhe: I'll start with that. 16:09:10 Rossen_: While we're on the topic, there's the user intentions task force. 16:09:42 Rossen_: They currently are looking at defining editing behaviours. Based on our last F2F discussion I think ther'es an overlap between some of our intentions and what these guys want to do. 16:10:02 Rossen_: Talking to Ben Peters they might also want to attend a joint meeting. Same protocal? 16:10:18 plinss: Sounds reasonable. Maybe you coordinate or put them in touch with me. 16:10:23 Topic: CSS Images 3 16:10:38 TabAtkins: As part of the F2F we said we'd repub since the CR is 2 years old. 16:10:50 TabAtkins: The older text hasn't been touched, I've only been doing 4. 16:10:51 +ChrisL 16:11:14 TabAtkins: I thought it was more reasonable to stip 4 down and use it in 3. It means there might be still some errors that have level 4 references. 16:11:41 TabAtkins: If there's anything else we can catch those. I need sign off on a few features that have been impl for a while and are stable enough for CR level draft. I need approval 16:11:51 TabAtkins: First is image-function so it doens't do URL fallback. 16:11:59 TabAtkins: That shouldn't be controversial. 16:12:25 TabAtkins: Second is I've moved 3 functions, image-set function which is impl by webkit and eq to picture. Cross-fade function for same reason 16:12:48 TabAtkins: Also image-rendering that controls interp px as you scale up or down. It's impl in at least 2 browsers so It's ready for stable. 16:13:00 krit: Most of the prop you mentioned were in webkit before.... 16:13:15 ChrisL has joined #css 16:13:17 TabAtkins: The two functions aren't in independant. Image-rendering is in firefox and webkit 16:13:36 ??: Other than what you've listed explicitly, is it all from resolutions or things you thought were good. 16:14:05 TabAtkins: I believe all res. The only other change I think of is that image function auto-rotates when before it was an explicit special value, but that's from a resolution 16:14:09 s/??/florian/ 16:14:17 florian: The other changes are links? 16:14:37 TabAtkins: Yes. I'll go through and verify to make sure I haven't made futher unitentional changes, but those are the ones I intended. 16:14:44 dbaron: What's now in 4 that isn't pulled back? 16:14:55 TabAtkins: element function, and a few other bits. 16:14:55 arybka has joined #css 16:15:20 TabAtkins: clinical gradients. 16:15:29 TabAtkins: that's it. Those two. 16:15:30 s/clinical/conical 16:15:33 dbaron: and bidi imanges 16:15:57 antenna has joined #css 16:15:58 TabAtkins: Yes. Images 4 is now out of date because of the text in 3. I'll backport in a while. Or reset 4 to a delta spec until we're ready for it to be stable. 16:16:23 ???: I think in general it makes sense. I feel better about things in other browsers instead of the ones only in pre-fork webkit. 16:16:30 s/???/MaRakow/ 16:16:32 smfr: So images 4 isn't in WD 16:16:34 TabAtkins: Yes. 16:16:42 MaRakow: So would we need another LC? 16:16:48 TabAtkins: This would be a new process LC/CR 16:16:54 s/MaRakow/??/ 16:16:54 MaRakow: Okay, so it doesn't matter. 16:17:06 plinss: Is that true? If were in CR we can't change? 16:17:09 +Liam 16:17:22 Bert: I think it would be great to publish a WD for 3 weeks and than go back to CR. 16:17:46 ??: The point of doing that would give a chance to go back. So as things coellese it can get comments in CR. 16:17:58 Bert: But CR means it's cemented and WD doesn't. 16:18:10 ??: But it used to. Now CR means we want comments. 16:18:16 s/??/Chris 16:18:21 s/??/Chris 16:18:33 MaRakow: Given that there are a lot of changes, should we pub a CR that we haven't read? 16:18:42 TabAtkins: You've read the level 4 draft. 16:18:53 MaRakow: We haven't read it as a CR. 16:19:03 s/MaRakow/??/ 16:19:10 florian: Can we have actions to review it? 16:19:16 I don't oppose dropping all the way back to WD but I don't think it is needed, we can go straight to LCCR which is the new procedd for "edited CR" 16:19:17 s/???/Florian/ 16:19:21 TabAtkins: I'm fine with waiting for a few weeks and brining it up again 16:19:51 ChrisL: So to be clear, people want WD again and I don't think we need to because LC/CR is meant to allow you to republish and disclose new features. I'll do whatever people want. 16:20:10 TabAtkins: I'm fine with give the group 2 or 3 weeks of time and then asking for LC/CR publication 16:20:13 ChrisL: Makes sense. 16:20:30 plinss: I think that sounds reasonable. Am I remembering there was one phase whre you can't switch? 16:20:37 ChrisL: Old LC to CR, I think. 16:20:50 yes, old LC to new LCCVR (which seems odd) 16:20:54 plinss: I'm hearing that everyone should review and come back in a few weeks. 16:21:02 florian: WE don't have anything on the new functions 16:21:19 s/anything/consensus 16:21:21 TabAtkins: Image-rendering. That's impl by two browsers. It has auto or pixilated or crisp edges for scaling. 16:21:32 krit: Is px the same in both? 16:21:48 TabAtkins: Yes. dholbert just asked for a minor change that will simplify, but yes. 16:21:58 florian: Should we resolve on that suggested change while we're at it? 16:22:28 TabAtkins: The change is previously the pixilated used the nearest neighbor when things are being scaled. Nearest neigh doesn't have good effects when going down. It loses info instead of scaling. 16:23:21 TabAtkins: Previous said when scaling down use normal scaling. The obj was that it was difficult to pipe in if you're going up or down to the point you're doing the scaling. And scaling down doesn't loose much information. We're mostly concerned about scaling up. He asked it to be changed to always nearest neighbor and doens't care about direction. 16:23:35 florian: If people have something better can we have a MAY use different for scaling down. 16:23:47 TabAtkins: Current is nearest neighbor or better. 16:24:35 ChrisL: Currently we require biliniar because we had impl that did nearest neighbor and it was horrible. So we need to have a minimuml level in the spec. If one says explicitly nearest and the other says do what you normally do. I'm sure we can have language that clarifies 16:24:53 TabAtkins: We have auto set up so that it can go to the cheapestest thing it can if it has limited resources. 16:25:02 ChrisL: Im worried the language will get abused. 16:25:14 TabAtkins: People can make ugly browsers, but people will complian. 16:25:49 krit: We do have a venue that's specifically for upscalling with nearest neighbor. It's meant for upscale, not when you downscale. 16:25:59 krit: Do we have a use case for make it ugly when you scale down? 16:26:02 TabAtkins: No. 16:26:13 s/krit/florian/ 16:26:20 florian: So when you upscale you must and downscale you may. 16:26:42 TabAtkins: The spec had previously said scaling up means at least in one dimension. Down is only if you're scrinking on all sides. 16:26:51 florian: Is that reasonable with what we just said? 16:27:08 ??: Nearest neighbor in terms of scale. 16:27:15 TabAtkins: I'm fine with adding weasel language. 16:27:19 s/??/krit/ 16:27:20 plinss: Is everyone happy witht he change 16:27:35 ok with the change, want to read exact weasel words 16:27:46 s/terms of scale./for down and up scaling?/ 16:27:50 TabAtkins: WE accept my proposal to allow nearest neighbor in both directions but allow browsers to do prettier in the down dirctions 16:27:57 RESOLVED: We accept my proposal to allow nearest neighbor in both directions but allow browsers to do prettier in the down dirctions 16:28:18 plinss: There's language in Images 3 [missed]. Did we ever publish a rec? 16:28:24 TabAtkins: Yes, it was in SVG spec. 16:28:42 plinss: So do we need to treat as depricated, or shuld it be invalid. 16:28:49 plinss: If it's spec in SVG that's fine. 16:29:08 TabAtkins: So the large question of image rendering in level 3. Yay or objections? 16:29:24 RECOLVED: Include image rendering in level 3 16:29:57 TabAtkins: Next is image set. Browser uses magic to decide which one to load. This is identical to image souce set. It's impl in webkit and match HTML so I thought this was stable. 16:30:07 florian: This matches the lates of HTML? 16:30:30 TabAtkins: The subset it addresses? This is more limited but I'd be happy the expand in 4 16:30:39 florian: This is a 3 way thingin in HTML. 16:31:02 TabAtkins: The third part is something I'd like to explore later. There will be a way, but I don't want to tie it into the stable set. 16:31:11 florian: So this is eq to the source set in HTML. 16:31:13 TabAtkins: Yeah. 16:31:22 TabAtkins: Any other opinions or obj? 16:31:27 ???: I'm in favor 16:31:33 plinss: There's only one impl? 16:31:43 s/???/hober/ 16:31:55 TabAtkins: Yes. Given that FF does source set, it may be easy to impl image set. It's easy to translate over. 16:32:18 florian: This has been controversial. If people haven't areed in HTML I'd obj, but given that HTML did setlle down I'm okay. 16:32:19 agree with florian there 16:32:29 plinss: I'm concerned about how long this will keep us in CR. 16:32:35 TabAtkins: We have 0 tests anyway. 16:32:40 plinss: We are shy on tests. 16:32:51 TabAtkins: I need to spend time on that. i plan to in the next couple months. 16:33:04 ??: There are 4 open issues. Will you port those over? 16:33:19 TabAtkins: They're mostly resolve din Level 3 I think. Let me look. 16:33:21 s/??/MaRakow/ 16:33:42 TabAtkins: There are two issues in Level 3. First is common to HTML and I don't think we want to resolve on CSS until HTML decides. 16:34:09 TabAtkins: Resolution is approx for file size, but not all file types are like that. Vector is infinent res but a small files size and image doesn't capture that well. 16:34:24 hober: You can do vector without an image set. 16:34:46 florian: What it does is it gives hints to the browser which vecotr it's meant to be. The high res, the low res... 16:35:07 TabAtkins: Vector also suffers from small image sizes. I think we should remove the issue, let HTML decide, and copy. Which might be nothing. 16:35:22 TabAtkins: Right now vector images can be the largest resolution and that works for now. 16:35:36 ChrisL: It's good as a first approx. There's also need to have multiple vector images. 16:35:36 s/what it does it is gives/what it doesn't do is giving/ 16:36:08 TabAtkins: That's discrimintating in a different way. Like pixal size which image-set doesnt' solve. I'm saying this is complex and CSS shouldn't solve it. HTML and CSS should be consistent. 16:36:27 MaRakow: Sounds like we should leave this is level 4 until resolved? 16:36:37 TabAtkins: This isn't a large problem. 16:37:26 florian: There's been a lot of discussion on this and people seem to be agreeing that what's in HTML is mostly right and good to go. The rest may be addressed in the future, but maybe not because no one cares enough. I don't think this is enough to block it and being consistant make sense. 16:37:39 MaRakow: So can we say the issue is resolved or is it open and pending HTML 16:38:00 TabAtkins: WE close for now because it's not a big deal. When it is resolved, we participate and make it consitent. 16:38:15 florian: Make it into a note saying we know this feature doesn't address that use case. 16:38:17 TabAtkins: Yes. 16:38:31 florian: It's a use case that will be addressed later. 16:38:50 TabAtkins: So obj to closing this with no change because we'll fix it later in harmony with HTML 16:38:55 RESOLVED: closing this with no change because we'll fix it later in harmony with HTML 16:39:29 TabAtkins: This is a restriction that doesn't let image set nest. This is from when there was fallback, but we removed the functionality from image and image set I switched to match HTML 16:39:54 TabAtkins: Now that there isnt' a need to worry about fallback, I think nesting is less complex and prob not a bad idea to lift the restriction so you can nest. 16:40:04 plinss: That precludes future fallback solutions 16:40:32 florian: That looks subtile enough I'd rather read it and think about it. You're prob right but I want time to agree. 16:40:51 plinss: I'm concerned if having the nesting restricts our ways of doing fallback in the future. 16:41:07 TabAtkins: I don't believe it will. I think we can add conditions as part of the fallback mech. 16:41:11 plinss: What do you gain? 16:41:25 TabAtkins: You have image set and have... 16:41:46 TabAtkins: Oh. You don't. You don't gain anything. It's a matter of making it invalid to nest and we're not gaining anything from having the restriction. 16:41:55 plinss: You're not gaining anything from the functionality 16:42:08 TabAtkins: No, it's useless to nest, I just want to remove the unneeded restriction 16:42:20 hober: I think we can add the limitation later. Authors don't do it. 16:42:35 florian: If everyone is cool I won't stand in the way, but I'd rather think on it. 16:42:41 plinss: Let's come back to it. 16:42:50 florian: Is there a summary in the spec? 16:43:17 action TabAtkins to e-mail the list about lifting restrictions on nesting image set 16:43:18 Created ACTION-652 - E-mail the list about lifting restrictions on nesting image set [on Tab Atkins Jr. - due 2014-10-01]. 16:43:32 TabAtkins: So the larger issue is keep image set in the spec, yay or obj? 16:43:40 TabAtkins: We're going to have a few weeks of review 16:43:47 florian: So the review is to let me decide. 16:43:50 hober: Yay. 16:44:00 RESOLVED: Have image set in level 3 16:44:11 TabAtkins: So the last lets you blend images or blend colors. 16:44:51 TabAtkins: It's used in blink/webkit to fill between animations. The syntax in the spec does differ from the current impl syntax b/c we changed from the prefixed in order to be extensible to multiple images in the future. 16:45:17 TabAtkins: IN the future level we want crossfade to be able to blend 3 or more images. So I had to tweek the syntax. 16:45:28 dbaron: Why doesn't crossfade take crossfade as an arguement. 16:45:33 TabAtkins: It does. It's messy 16:45:53 dbaron: It's the natural thing that falls out of transitions. So you end up with a nested case instead of a three function 16:45:57 TabAtkins: You might be right. 16:46:13 zcorpan has joined #css 16:46:20 TabAtkins: I'll give that more thought to see if we want to extend that. I need to talk to shane because I think there was something about additive animations. 16:46:25 TabAtkins: So we may revert back. 16:46:42 dbaron: This is also pulling the interolation rues that depend on crossfade into images 3. 16:46:52 dbaron: This almost sounds like abandoning images 3 and doing images 4 16:47:41 TabAtkins: I recall an earlier F2F about what it would meant o mainitan a CR level 3 and WD level 4 and it would mean that whenever the level 4 items are ready to advance we would take those features and pull them into a repub of the lower level CR. 16:47:53 dbaron: That depends on the definition of stable. These aren't ready to exit CR. 16:48:05 TabAtkins: Yes. But by that criteria image 3 should be out of CR as well. 16:48:16 with zero tests its clear nothing is ready toexit CR 16:48:19 dbaron: I guess I'm okay with it. It prob will mean it's hard to get it to REC. 16:48:31 TabAtkins: That's poss. I don't think these are the first things that will drop 16:48:39 florian: All this stuff you're adding, can it be at risk? 16:49:03 ChrisL: In some ways I'd rather put it in and see if it has traction. If we want to move and it looks dodgy, we can change them to at risk 16:49:13 florian: Is there any down side to at risk? 16:49:25 ChrisL: There's a slight one because it's usually a flag saying we're going to pull this. 16:49:43 TabAtkins: Previously it was to allow its removal to not be a normative change, but that's not needed anymore. 16:49:49 florian: Okay. So ignore what I said. 16:49:59 plinss: So we can delete the features and go right back to CR. 16:50:08 florian: So with lack of LC do we need at risk? 16:50:17 plinss: Let's not bikeshed the process. 16:50:29 TabAtkins: So crossfade function in? There may be tweeks during review 16:50:42 TabAtkins: And putting it in for now doesn't mean we can't put it back into 4 later. 16:50:55 RESOLVED: move crossfade to level 3 of Images 16:51:10 http://dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors-3/#application-in-css 16:51:10 Topic: Sizing of floated ::first-letter 16:51:48 florian: In selecors 3 there's some language from 2.1 that allows thing to pick the letter height of the first letter. That was there because if you do it well you could make it look better. 16:52:23 florian: Only FF is doing this so it's not interop. And we have another value coming in that's better at drop-cap. So I suggest we remove the special casing. 16:52:35 http://florian.rivoal.net/csswg/first-letter-tests/first-letter-001.html 16:52:35 http://florian.rivoal.net/csswg/first-letter-tests/first-letter-002.html 16:52:35 http://florian.rivoal.net/csswg/first-letter-tests/first-letter-003.html 16:52:35 http://florian.rivoal.net/csswg/first-letter-tests/first-letter-001-ref.html 16:52:38 florian: I wrote a few test cases that should the difference. 16:53:11 florian: Only FF does anything different. I think gregwhitworth mentioned that there might be subtile differences elsewhere, but I don't think there's a case for allowing the difference other than drop-caps 16:53:18 agreed 16:53:21 TabAtkins: I agree. I think initial-letter will do it better. 16:53:26 Rossen_: Sounds reasonable. 16:53:32 florian: dbaron? 16:53:44 dbaron: I'd like to see initial-letter be more stable, but I guess I'm okay 16:54:00 RESOLVED: remove special case from ::first-letter 16:54:08 florian: I'll submit the tests. 16:54:18 florian: Do we submit from TTWF or is the old way fine? 16:54:24 plinss: Old way is just fine. 16:54:31 florian: What's prefer? 16:54:35 plinss: Author's preference 16:54:42 Topic: Overriding and important style 16:55:23 !sudo 16:55:25 mikesherov: Bascally what we have is a situation whenre element.style.setProperty doesn't change the imporant. To do the way casade works it doesn't take the delcaration. 16:56:11 http://bugs.jquery.com/ticket/14394 16:56:15 mikesherov: There's no way to change from red important to black in one step. It's not interop and it fires two mutation observers. WE tried to fix this in JQuery which cased a few more bugs. 16:56:18 http://bugs.jquery.com/ticket/14836 16:56:19 ok so it is an atomic operation to change value and importance together 16:56:42 mikesherov: Because there isn't interop, though webkit, blink and IE are doing what the spec says, it might make sense to switch to what FF is doing 16:56:45 glazou: I support this 16:56:50 https://connect.microsoft.com/IE/feedback/details/831122/assigning-to-the-style-property-initialized-to-an-important-value-isnt-applied 16:57:14 mikesherov: When we filled the bug is Microsoft they pointed to the spec so I think they'd change if we changed the spec and I'm hoping blink/webkit supports it. 16:57:24 mikesherov: I'mn ot sure how many authors are relying on the current behaviour 16:57:39 glazou: I don't think many authors are, but app authors hit it a lot and het it. 16:57:57 mikesherov: It's important for something like jQuery to be able to do this in one step. 16:58:12 ChrisL: It make sense for this to be an autonomous declaration 16:58:42 mikesherov: From the ML it seemed there was a res last august in the opposite direction. I'm not sure what the details of that decision were, but I'd like to see a change. 16:58:52 plinss: Anyone remember or have minutes from that? 16:59:00 dbaron: My memory is someone didn't want to change. 16:59:08 plinss: Are they willing to change now? 16:59:17 TabAtkins: I don't see reason why we'd object 16:59:34 plinss: So are folks okay with resolving? 16:59:45 hober: I don't know either way. I don't know compat risk. 16:59:59 Rossen_: Same for us. We need to evaluate the compat and see if we'd need to change. 17:00:13 mikesherov: I'm new. I don't understand about evaluating the compat risk. 17:00:25 i think it's ok compat-wise. last time i looked at it i only found scripts expecting the firefox behavior 17:00:42 Rossen_: We can try to run some queries to see how widely this pattern is used and once we find that we can see what the consiquences would be for site breakage. 17:00:56 florian: I don't know how you'd search. It's not an easy thing to parse. 17:01:16 Rossen_: I'm not saying it will be. We can try and mine the data. I don't know success. 17:02:00 mikesherov: Webdev believe that they can set it how they want to and since it's an inline style they think they can change it. Again, Firefox does the 'expected' behaviour. I'm not sure how to research. 17:02:16 florian: One thing would be does FF have bugs? 17:02:23 TabAtkins: I don't think it was an issue. 17:02:32 s/TabAtkins/dbaron/ 17:02:35 plinss: Does people want time to research or can we resolve now? 17:02:40 Rossen_: I'd like a week. 17:02:59 -hober 17:03:00 -dbaron 17:03:05 action Rossen_ research changing the overwriting of an important style 17:03:05 -antonp 17:03:05 Error finding 'Rossen_'. You can review and register nicknames at . 17:03:06 -ChrisL 17:03:07 -dauwhe 17:03:07 -Liam 17:03:07 -Rossen_ 17:03:08 -Bert? 17:03:08 -mikesherov 17:03:08 -[Microsoft.a] 17:03:08 -glazou 17:03:10 plinss: Thanks everyone. 17:03:10 -TabAtkins 17:03:11 -plinss 17:03:12 -[IPcaller] 17:03:12 -MaRakow 17:03:14 -murakami 17:03:14 -florian 17:03:18 -dael 17:03:19 -krit 17:03:25 -SimonSapin 17:03:52 dael: looks like it missed actioning Rossen_ 17:04:25 - +1.631.398.aaee 17:04:26 Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended 17:04:26 Attendees were plinss, gregwhitworth, +1.917.934.aaaa, +1.479.764.aabb, dael, +93192aacc, dauwhe, antonp, florian, +33.1.39.21.aadd, glazou, murakami, [IPcaller], hober, 17:04:26 ... +1.631.398.aaee, krit, TabAtkins, Rossen_, dbaron, SimonSapin, +1.206.992.aahh, MaRakow, mikesherov, ChrisL, Bert?, Liam 17:09:30 gregwhitworth has joined #css 17:09:33 dauwhe has joined #css 17:10:36 florian has left #css 17:16:24 action Rossen research changing the overwriting of an important style 17:16:24 Created ACTION-653 - Research changing the overwriting of an important style [on Rossen Atanassov - due 2014-10-01]. 17:36:33 dauwhe has joined #css 17:45:55 jet has joined #css 18:07:39 Do we have two implementations of image-set()? 18:12:08 adenilson has joined #css 18:22:09 No, we only have one independent implementation of image-set() and cross-fade(). But we have multiple independent implementations of , which is a superset of the functionality and nearly identical syntax. 18:51:22 jet_ has joined #css 19:03:02 Ms2ger has joined #css 19:13:10 zcorpan has joined #css 19:20:16 Zakim has left #css 19:30:48 darktears has joined #css 19:52:45 plinss: any reason not to redirect *all the things* to HTTP? 19:52:59 I mean redirect to HTTPS :) 19:53:10 SimonSapin: yeah, the tests... 19:53:17 everything else can be https 19:54:23 I mean https-only (with a redirect from http), rather than optionally https if you go and tweak your URL bar 19:54:28 (tests aside) 19:54:38 https requires SNI on that server over IPv4, so some clients won’t be able to access the sub-domains 19:55:06 how much do we care about these clients? 19:55:41 probably not that much 19:55:44 (actually that may not be an issue anymore since I got a wildcard cert) 19:56:19 I think it’s important to be able to get the tests over http (happy to be proved wrong there) and am concerned about mixed-content issues... 19:57:02 Agreed on testing over HTTP 19:58:40 (Servo supports HTTPS, but only recently :)) 19:59:34 heh, how about DANE? 20:00:28 (no browser supports that yet, as far as I know) 20:00:42 this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS-based_Authentication_of_Named_Entities 20:00:46 yep 20:00:52 sounds interesting 20:01:42 FWIW, csswg.org has full DNSSEC and pins its certs with DANE (as do all of my domains) 20:02:09 is that hard to set up? 20:02:34 compared to, say, TLS with a cert from a CA 20:02:36 not if you run your own DNS server, not too many of the DNS services support DNSSEC yet 20:03:18 adding a TLSA (DANE) record is easy, but it’s not all that valuable unless you also use DNSSEC 20:03:34 I see 20:04:00 note that wile DANE allows self-signed certs, it can be used with CA certs too, you can either pin the cert or your CA 20:04:17 (prevents your cert being replaced with a “valid” cert issued by another CA) 20:04:48 Servo can be the first to support it natively! 20:28:29 zcorpan has joined #css 20:29:35 dbaron has joined #css 20:30:31 tantek has joined #css 20:30:34 zcorpan_ has joined #css 20:36:06 zcorpan has joined #css 21:22:08 dbaron has joined #css 21:44:40 dauwhe_ has joined #css 23:25:07 dael has joined #css 23:46:55 liam has joined #css