15:15:32 RRSAgent has joined #css 15:15:32 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/09/09-css-irc 15:15:37 Zakim has joined #css 15:15:43 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:15:56 Florian has joined #css 15:16:08 salut Florian :) 15:37:36 Florian has joined #css 15:37:38 Florian has joined #css 15:39:05 hyojin has joined #css 15:42:37 glazou: Salut 15:48:43 MaRakow has joined #CSS 15:51:12 dael has joined #css 15:51:58 dael_ has joined #css 15:57:33 antenna has joined #css 15:58:02 Florian_ has joined #css 15:59:26 ScribeNick: dael 15:59:32 ChrisL has joined #css 15:59:35 present+ dael 15:59:40 present+ dauwhe 15:59:42 present+ ChrisL 16:00:11 present+ antenna 16:00:16 bkardell_ has joined #css 16:00:19 present+ glazou 16:00:21 alex_antennahouse has joined #css 16:00:25 present+ plinss 16:00:31 present + bkardell_ 16:01:31 present+ astearns 16:01:37 present+ antonp 16:01:53 present+ dbaron 16:02:11 present+ MaRakow 16:02:17 present+ hyojin 16:03:37 Present+ Bert 16:03:44 andrey-bbg has joined #css 16:04:37 Rossen_web has joined #css 16:04:42 glazou: Let's start 16:05:14 present+ fantasai 16:05:15 glazou: I noticed two extra items outside what's in the agenda. First was a request from fantasai to transition CSS Break to CR. Sorry, three items. Second was prefixing polify. 16:05:42 glazou: fantasai, how much time do you need for Fragmentation? 16:05:44 fantasai: NOt much. 16:05:51 glazou: So since it's pub let's start there. 16:05:56 Topic: Fragmentation 16:05:57 adenilson has joined #css 16:06:02 fantasai: Let me grab to DoC 16:06:02 https://drafts.csswg.org/css-break-3/issues-lc-2015 16:06:23 bcampbell has joined #css 16:06:29 http://www.w3.org/mid/55E7486C.9050004@inkedblade.net 16:06:33 fantasai: I also sent an e-mail. Let me get that URL. That summerizes. 16:07:01 fantasai: WE have a DoC. Chris wants it formatted differently, but hasn't said exactly how. The changes list is minimal. 16:07:01 q+ 16:07:14 gregdavis has joined #css 16:07:19 gregwhitworth has joined #css 16:07:48 ChrisL: The specific thing I would like, but won't obj if you don't, is to more clearly show if the commentor has accepted the working group's rejection. You asked me for a good one, but I couldn't find a recent one, but I have to explain them and it adds time. 16:07:55 ChrisL: If you don't have it or it's not easy that's okay. 16:08:16 ChrisL: So have one color for if the WG agrees and have a different color for if the commentor has areed with the resolution. maybe a border. 16:08:39 bradk has joined #css 16:08:45 fantasai: I can make that happen. Most of them were accepted and the commentor didn't respond. I can go around and try and accumulate responses, but I just agreed with everything or defered. 16:08:55 ChrisL: I agree it's not always easy to get a commentor to respond. 16:09:12 s/respond/respond, if we already did what they asked 16:09:19 fantasai: There was follow-up tot he NY resolution we discussed but didn't conclude formally so I'd like a resolution or that people don't care. People wanted to look at it more. 16:09:34 fantasai: If they haven't looked, we can delay another week while people look. 16:09:49 fantasai: I don't know. The chairs are responcible to make sure we have a resolution for the things in the e-mail. 16:10:04 present+ TabAtkins 16:10:06 glazou: So... 16:10:14 present+ gregwhitworth 16:10:16 Florian_: Who wanted extra time and more do they feel about it now? 16:10:24 s/more/how 16:10:34 glazou: Nobody apperently. 16:10:43 fantasai: Florian_ 16:10:47 Florian_: Oh, it was me? 16:11:17 Florian_: Has the thing happened? I said I was okay witht he prose, but wanted to see examples. Have they been put up? 16:11:20 fantasai: No, they haven't. 16:11:59 fantasai: The issue is I have a box with borders and margin and padding and it has box-decoratin: break. Inside, several levels deep, there's a heading that forces a break. Should there be a margin at the top of the page due to the cloning of the outer box. 16:12:44 Florian_: I remember the discussion. It still makes sense to me. if it's just me don't block. I wasn't sure which way to go because there wasn't a use case to help me decide. The arguement made sense in general. If it's just me, go ahead. 16:12:52 glazou: Objections to the proposed change? 16:13:10 glazou: [reads minutes] It sounds like consensus but we were waiting on a final decision. 16:13:15 RESOLVED: Accept the change. 16:13:21 fantasai: That's it. 16:13:27 fantasai: We need a resolution for CR 16:13:47 glazou: Transition request and edits and everything, yeah. We need a resolution. Everyone okay with moving the doc to CR? 16:14:03 RESOLVED: Publish Fragmentation as CR 16:14:12 glazou: Who will handle it? 16:14:16 fantasai: Prob. me. 16:14:19 glazou: Thank you. 16:14:35 Topic: Prefixing policy 16:14:37 https://drafts.csswg.org/css-2015/#experimental 16:14:50 glazou: I reviewed it and I have a few comments as a regular member. 16:15:08 glazou: In section 3.3.1 you don't mention prefixing, but it is in .2 and .3 but it doesn't say what prefixing is. 16:15:31 glazou: I didn't understand the difference in prefixing between the other sections and this one. Overall I think it's good enough. 16:15:39 fantasai: I can take an action for those clarifications. 16:15:53 ACTION fantasai make clarifications of what prefixing is in 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 16:15:54 Created ACTION-721 - Make clarifications of what prefixing is in 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 [on Elika Etemad - due 2015-09-16]. 16:16:10 glazou: Any other comments on that section? 16:16:30 fantasai: I think MS and Apple wanted to take it back for review. If they need more time we need to give it. 16:16:53 ??: I'll send it around. most of the stuff we had concerns on we had addressed, but I'll send it around and say I need it for next week. 16:17:01 s/??/greg 16:17:07 glazou: I'm not sure we have anyone from Apple, but can you drop a message to smfr to do the same? 16:17:11 fantasai: I can. 16:17:15 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Aug/0348.html 16:17:18 Topic: a11y requirements on authoring tools 16:17:37 q+ 16:17:40 fantasai: I had an action to come up witht he wording. I sent it to the list. If people are happy with it we can add it to grid and flexbox. 16:18:00 bo: I like the wording and I'd like to run it by a couple people. I can do that really quickly and get back on that. 16:18:14 s/bo/bcampbell 16:18:22 glazou: Can it wait for bcampbell? 16:18:44 fantasai: Yes, ut I'd like to hear from the rest of the group. If everyone else is okay we can maybe do a resolution pending Bo's feedback. 16:18:44 tantek has joined #css 16:18:49 glazou: I have no problem witht he wording. 16:18:54 Florian_: I agree witht he intent. 16:18:58 dauwhe: I like the wording. 16:19:00 AH_Miller has joined #CSS 16:19:02 TabAtkins: I'm fine witht he wording. 16:19:07 s/the intent/the intent and the wording/ 16:19:07 Rossen_web: I LOVE the wording. 16:19:17 I want to have the wordings baby. 16:19:17 glazou: Objection? 16:19:31 present+ tantek 16:19:33 RESOVED: accept the new wording pending bcampbell's feedback. 16:19:41 can we ack the folks on the speaker queue tho? 16:19:49 q? 16:19:54 q- 16:20:03 s/RESOVED/RESOLVED/ 16:20:07 Zakim, ack bkardell_ 16:20:07 I see no one on the speaker queue 16:20:13 bkardell_: There were some related discussions on the ML about the a11y. 16:20:51 bkardell_: Effectively I guess...do we need to strongly pusht he same sort of understanding to authors that we're pushing to the tooling? Even just today Moz hacks posted an article saying that the order of content in HTML markup isn't important anymore 16:21:09 bkardell_: Everyone I've spoken to that is there impress and their want/desire, but it isn't true. 16:22:01 fantasai: We've done as much as we can in the spec to emphasize to athors. This is for authoring tools. We have warnings to authors in every section. I think what people have an impression of depends on who you're talking to. The authors that speak at conferences understand it's so you can give the source order in a logical manner. 16:22:30 fantasai: The problem is the people teaching the ordering aren't viewing it as important. I think we can do some evangelizing on that. I don't see how much else we can do in the spec. 16:22:48 bkardell_: Yes. And make sure all the examples demostrate good source order and call it out in the examples. 16:23:19 fantasai: If you see anywhere we need to call it out more, please let us know, but I think in all the cases where we used order we explained it. If you find specific places where we forgot, please send us feedback on that. 16:23:30 glazou: Okay. We have a resolution. We can move on. 16:23:31 bkardell_, send me a link to the Mozilla Hacks article? 16:23:31 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Aug/0345.html 16:23:39 Topic: baselines of flex and grid containers. 16:23:45 moz hacks article https://hacks.mozilla.org/2015/09/the-future-of-layout-with-css-grid-layouts/ 16:24:34 fantasai: This was an issue of what do we do to find the baseline of a flex container. If you have a flex container that has stuff inside it and that iself is being baseline-aligned because it's in a table cell or whatever, it needs to have a position that it's baseline. 16:25:34 fantasai: The rule we have now is if some of the items are baseline aligned, we use that. If none of them do, we take the baseline of the first item. If that doesn't have any text we synt a baseline by taking hte bottom of the content box. timeless pointed out that instead of taking hte first item and giving up, why not keep looking for an item with text and use that. 16:26:10 fantasai: I don't have a strong opinion. Just using the first item is prob slightly easier to impl. The other is slightly more logical. I'd like to hear from the group what they'd like to do. It's all summerized in the e-mail. 16:26:19 glazou: Opinions? 16:26:41 dbaron: If an author wants an item to be the baseline, they can baseline-align that so it doesn't seem worth the complexity in the defaults. 16:27:04 fantasai: Anybody else with an opinion? If not we'll no change. 16:27:10 Rossen_web: The proposal is no change? 16:27:17 fantasai: We're proposing no change. 16:27:21 Rossen_web: I'm for no change. 16:27:30 glazou: Other opinions? 16:27:33 fantasai^: timeless is proposing a change 16:27:46 glazou: It's hard to declare consensus with one opinion. 16:27:47 vollick has joined #css 16:27:51 I'm fine with no change 16:27:55 fantasai: Everyone that has spoken is for no change. 16:27:59 myles has joined #css 16:28:00 glazou: Objections to no change? 16:28:13 RESOLVED: no change for baselines and flex and grid containers 16:28:30 Topic: reverting '0' -> '0%' change 16:29:26 myles has joined #css 16:29:42 %s have all kinds of weird behavior :P 16:29:46 fantasai: In the distant past we took flexbox to CR and got a comment from dholbert where if you have a column-flex container and the container is auto: height it can become 0 which isn't useful. We changed how the keyword works where instead of flex-basis of 0 we changed it to 0% because it gets treated as auto when in a box with unconstrained dimentions 16:30:32 fantasai: There's another section that defined intrinisc sizes of flex containers, though, and it handles this better. You do the max-content size calculation and that preserves the height. So this is taken care of in a way that makes sense so we should revert the change for how we expand the shorthand. 16:31:04 myles has joined #css 16:31:08 fantasai: What would change are the cases where someone set flex: 1 or flex: 3 and hasn't done flex-basis in an auto-height flex container. I believe that was broken in some earlier impl so in those cases it wouldn't have been useful. 16:31:50 fantasai: Also with the 0% change it gives you the same results as if you had spec auto or not anything. So it seems unlikely authors would have done this intentionally. So switching back won't cause compat concern, but it willg et us better behavior going forward. 16:32:35 fantasai: It allows for a useful behavior that authors might want whichi s I want all the items of equal height but at least tall enough to contain the tallest item which is the behavior from the intrinisc sizing rule. 16:32:50 I can no longer reason about it, but when I did have this loaded into my head, I agreed with it. 16:33:18 Which implementation is willing to make the change first? 16:33:37 fantasai: I discussed this with TabAtkins and Rossen_web and we think this is the right change to make. But this is substantal so I want to hear if the rest of the group is okay. Christian Biesinger has concerns that this might cause web compat if authors ar using the behavior. I haven't measured that, but it's unlikely they're using these in this context since it's not sign. different than the auto behavior. 16:33:44 glazou: Opinions? 16:34:30 Rossen_web: This is one of those things that's going to be hard to measure based on querying web content. We can see if people are using it as specified values. My guess is people aren't. I want to echo fantasai summary that it was a terrible hack and now we have a better way to do it so there's no reason to keep the hack. 16:34:41 Rossen_web: Any tools currently using it will change as soon as the impl changes. 16:34:42 The situation that triggers this is *column* flex container with auto height, flex items with 'flex: ' as a declaration 16:34:58 Rossen_web: To dbaron question as to which impl will go first, whomever is shipping the soonest. 16:35:10 Florian_: So you don't have an issue with being first if releases happen that way? 16:35:38 Rossen_web: If we have a shipping vehichle where we can put it out there soon, we don't mind. 16:35:56 Rossen_web: There's usually other impl that ship quicker than we do, so we'll see who beats us to the punch. 16:36:07 Florian_: But you're not waiting for someone to get to market. 16:36:18 dbaron: I'm inclined to think we should wait until someone else does it first. 16:36:39 Rossen_web: At the least we can do a pro with a modified version of our platform and see if any breakage comes back. 16:36:58 Florian_: TabAtkins since your'e in favor and ship frequently, is there a chance you'd be testing how well this goes? 16:37:07 s/your'e/you're 16:37:21 s/pro/crawl/ 16:37:28 TabAtkins: We'd be willing to test it. 16:37:53 glazou: Do I hear correctly we want to wait until an impl ships? 16:38:00 Florian_: I think the 'we' was Mozilla. 16:38:05 Rossen_web: Why do they want to wait? 16:38:28 Florian_: Concerns on webcompat. I heard that we're willing to resolve, but they want to wait to make the change until someone else does. 16:39:05 Rossen_web: I think this was something we added in Sophia last year. Given that impl have only done this for fairly short period of time, do we really believe that there will be that big of a compat hit? 16:39:41 fantasai: If we agree this is right, our only concern is webcompat, we shouldr esolve to make the change and note in the spec there's a chance there might be a webcompat issue. 16:39:44 Florian_: Sounds good. 16:39:57 s/Florian_/Rossen/ 16:39:57 Rossen_web: Sounds good to me. I don't wnat to hold the spec for that one issue. 16:40:01 present+ Rossen_web 16:40:10 glazou: So any objection to that proposal? 16:40:20 glazou: dbaron? 16:40:24 I'm fine with it 16:40:25 fantasai^: This gives implementers the go ahead to make the change, and we can revisit if it turns out to be a problem 16:40:31 and I just hit the end-call button instead of the unmute button 16:40:35 glazou: Thanks dbaron. No objections? 16:40:43 RESOLVED: make the change and note in the spec there's a chance there might be a webcompat issue 16:40:55 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Aug/0342.html 16:40:57 Topic: Simplification of auto-repeat 16:41:49 fantasai: The auto-repeat sntax allows for repeating an entire track listing. Most use cases would be handled by a single track which might be worth simplifying to for level one. So the proposal is to restrict auto-fill and auto-fit to only take a single track size as an arguement. 16:41:51 what happens with something like repeat(auto-fill, 100px) auto 16:41:52 As responded in the list, I'm fine with this restriction; I think most use-cases are addressed with it. I have no problem with keeping it unrestricted as well, tho. 16:42:04 Rossen_web: That's illegal at the grammar level. 16:42:20 what about repeat(auto-fill, min-content 16:42:24 fantasai: I don't know many cases where you would need multiple track sizes now that we have gutters. The only case that's come up is if you have items with sub grids in which case being able to repeat a track listing would be helpful. 16:42:25 what about repeat(auto-fill, min-content) 16:42:29 The repeat(auto*) functions are only allowed in a "definite lengths only" variant of the track-list grammar. 16:42:41 fantasai: track listings inside the auto-repeat can only be fixed sizes. 16:43:20 Rossen_web: What happens when...It will have a non-trivial interaction with auto-placement, but also when you have auto-fill min-content where the size depends on the last piece of content. 16:43:21 Read your replies, Rossen_web ^_^ 16:43:47 https://drafts.csswg.org/css-grid/#repeat-notation 16:43:51 fantasai: We forbid that. The way the algo works is you need to know how many columns you have before you can do placement. So if you're going to do as many columns will fit, you have to give a concrete size. 16:43:56 Rossen_web: Okay, that makes sense. 16:44:15 s/can do placement./can do placement, and you need to do placement before you can size the columns./ 16:44:35 glazou: Objections to the proposal? To restrict auto-fill and auto-fit to onlu take single track sizes as an arguement. 16:44:56 Havne't identified? They were presented in the emails that asked for the feature. 16:45:05 astearns: I'm concerned we haven't IDed a use case for this. Gutters was certainly the most present one, but I think this might be prematurely restricting the expressivity of auto-repeat 16:45:28 Rossen_web: We can always decide to move this to level 2 if it happens to be not very useful or hard to impl. 16:46:17 sorry, expressed that badly. I'm concerned that there may be use cases for repetitions of multiple track sizes that we aren't considering 16:46:25 fantasai: I can call it out as an issue. There's two ways to handle it. Right now the spec says we could simplify this down. I could switch so that the spec says the single track and put in an issue that the WG isn't aware of sign. use cases for multiple track listings and if you have any, please make us aware. We have a few months before CR so we can put a call out. 16:47:03 fantasai: If people come back with test cases we can expand out the spec. If nobody comes back with anything we can turn the issue into a note that in a future level it may be expanded. Or we leave the spec as-is and keep asking for use cases to make it more interesting. 16:47:12 s/test cases/use cases/ 16:47:21 glazou: Does that sound like a plan? Any preference? 16:47:30 Rossen_web: Any preference to... 16:47:42 I'm fine with leaving multiple track size repetitions as a future expansion 16:47:47 glazou: There are two ways to handle it, she said, and highlighted the two ways. 16:47:51 a) Ask for use cases, leave spec with full track-listing 16:47:58 Rossen_web: I prefer the second. Don't clutter the spec. 16:48:12 b) Simplify spec. Leave issue open asking for use cases, and switch back if needed. Turn the issue into a note at CR saying a future level might expand. 16:48:26 glazou: So fantasai Just typed in IRC [reads IRC] 16:48:26 b sounds good to me 16:48:34 B 16:48:47 B 16:48:47 glazou: So astearns and Rossen_web say B. Other opinions? 16:48:51 B 16:49:05 glazou: A few opinions for B. 16:49:09 bradk has joined #css 16:49:15 abstain 16:49:16 glazou: objections to B? 16:49:22 RESOLVED: Simplify spec. Leave issue open asking for use cases, and switch back if needed. Turn the issue into a note at CR saying a future level might expand. 16:49:26 AH_Miller has joined #CSS 16:49:52 glazou: The next item might require someone from apple. 16:50:12 myles: I'm from Apple, but I'm not comfortable discussing this. 16:50:18 I'm fine with dropping; I think it's valuable, but not necessary for level 1. 16:50:21 fantasai: Can we get a resolution to republish Grid? 16:50:25 In favor. ^_^ 16:50:29 +1 publish 16:50:29 +1 16:50:29 Yep 16:50:30 glazou: Absolutely. In favor? Against? 16:50:31 +1 16:50:33 Florian_: Sure. 16:50:34 +1 16:50:48 RESOLVED: Republish Grid with the changes discussed above. 16:51:17 fantasai: There's a couple of things we need to clean up in the internals, but we're pretty much done so we're going to issue a last call for review and hopefully get everything wrapped up for TPAC. 16:51:22 ACTION everyone review Grid 16:51:22 Error finding 'everyone'. You can review and register nicknames at . 16:51:30 q? 16:51:51 Florian_: In general I think discussing scroll snap is good. With regards to dropping group snapping, it''s not something anyone hass. 16:52:34 myakura has joined #css 16:52:36 Florian_: Details of snapping if Apple needs time, let's take time. In regards to dropping group snapping, I don't think we should be gated since that was introduced in the new model as something we can do, but not something we had to do. 16:52:55 MaRakow: Group snapping isn't in level 1 currently. There was thought we wanted to put in before formalizing the proposal. 16:53:12 Florian_: The one I'm speaking of is the proposal from TabAtkins and fantasai to replace the current level 1. 16:53:21 http://w3cmemes.tumblr.com/image/127627542697 16:53:22 fantasai: We can sort it out later. It's not controversial. 16:53:29 Topic: TTA 16:54:27 glazou: We need to make progress on that front. I got the messages about what needs to be done and what's going to be done. I wanted to say these are very visable specs and we need to move one with them. I'm going to review the other specs on our radar to see if we're lagging on any other specs and what has to be done. We can discuss that at TPAC. 16:54:38 glazou: We have 5 minutes left. Anyone want to discuss something? 16:55:02 tantek has joined #css 16:55:27 Florian_: As a quick note I don't think there's an official message on the ML. We discussed the official Japanese industry meeting during TPAC and from what I've heard they're looking at Sunday afternoon. I think an offical responce is pending soon, but you may want to take that into account in your plans. 16:55:58 Florian_: The idea is that Japanese companies are interested in things like layout and writing-mode and they'd like to meet us. We're setting up a time for that and it's prob. Sunday afternoon before TPAC. 16:56:03 glazou: Anything else? 16:56:16 glazou: Okay. It's a shorter call. Thank you very much and see you next week. 16:56:36 fantasai: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2015/09/the-future-of-layout-with-css-grid-layouts/ 16:56:45 56 minutes "shorter call" ^_^ 16:56:47 bradk has joined #css 16:56:56 TabAtkins: eh 16:57:06 worst we did was 75 minutes TabAtkins 16:57:15 yes, got them 16:57:58 dael: I guess I can review the Houdini minutes? 16:58:04 gregdavis has joined #css 16:59:01 No problem here. 16:59:07 glazou_ has joined #css 16:59:43 Sounds good! Thank you both. 17:05:09 JohnMcLear has joined #css 17:08:32 bkardell_: Message sent 17:09:05 bkardell_: Need to work on a11y warnings in Grid; we have a bunch in Flexbox, but haven't added equivalent sections to Grid 17:10:16 renoirb has joined #css 17:10:40 still on here, have task to review before Friday. 17:10:49 grid, that is 17:11:13 bcampbell: ? 17:11:29 Grid for a11y, sorry. 17:12:03 btw, first eyes approve for the wyswyg... sent along to one more. 17:12:15 oh, I'm just saying, I have to add a11y text similar to what we have in Flexbox to the Grid spec -- it's missing currently. 17:12:54 estellevw has joined #css 17:12:59 about reordering? 17:13:03 or about all a11y 17:14:13 I was just piping in that I will help review it. But if you're adding the a11y and it hasn't happened, yet, maybe should wait? 17:14:16 about reordering 17:14:19 oh 17:14:30 ok 17:17:19 darktears has joined #css 17:24:35 Florian has joined #css 17:30:12 tantek has joined #css 17:37:17 adenilson has joined #css 17:48:40 dael: s/people teaching the ordering/writing tutorials and articles on 'order'/ 17:49:12 fantasai: got it. Thanks. 18:01:14 zcorpan has joined #css 18:03:39 dbaron has joined #css 18:13:21 zcorpan has joined #css 18:25:42 Florian has joined #css 18:33:59 gregdavis has joined #css 18:44:16 zcorpan has joined #css 18:45:25 rego has joined #css 18:54:25 rego has joined #css 19:00:18 gregdavis has joined #css 19:03:29 rego has joined #css 19:08:37 Zakim has left #css 19:16:29 rego has joined #css 19:26:23 lajava has joined #css 19:29:30 myakura has joined #css 19:31:14 myakura has joined #css 19:40:05 rego has joined #css 19:51:50 myles has joined #css 19:53:06 rego has joined #css 19:54:31 myles has joined #css 19:58:58 TabAtkins: Up for working on scroll-snap sometime this week? 20:06:06 rego has joined #css 20:15:16 fantasai: This week is bad for me. 20:15:25 TabAtkins: Okay. Next week? 20:15:33 Yeah, I can do sometime next week. 20:15:51 I'm completely open, so how about Monday? 20:18:32 bcampbell has joined #css 20:18:51 Works for me. 20:22:41 myakura has joined #css 20:34:32 nvdbleek has joined #css 20:49:07 rego has joined #css 20:49:40 tantek has joined #css 21:32:25 dbaron has joined #css 21:41:48 dauwhe has joined #css 22:07:53 dauwhe_ has joined #css 22:13:33 gregdavis has joined #css 22:28:12 Florian has joined #css 22:44:01 plinss: Did we drop the pre-commit hook that enforced one head? 22:44:25 fantasai: no, but GitHub doesn’t have the equivalent 22:44:33 so we can get extra heads via GitHub 22:45:07 I merged it in, but used to get an error for that irc 22:47:38 hmm, the hook may have broken along the way somewhere… I’ll look in to it 22:49:00 abucur___ has joined #css 22:49:01 majidvp_ has joined #css 22:49:01 birtles has joined #css 22:49:04 mihnea_____ has joined #css 22:49:06 robertknight_clo_ has joined #css 22:49:07 iank has joined #css 22:58:23 adenilson has joined #css 23:02:44 amtiskaw has joined #css 23:03:33 dbaron has joined #css 23:16:59 myles1 has joined #css 23:18:03 myles1 has joined #css 23:20:15 astearns: Was there anything open on CSS4 Text? Or is it just sending out a pubrequest? 23:26:12 sylvaing_away has joined #css 23:26:26 Ms2ger has joined #css 23:26:48 leaverou_away has joined #css 23:27:18 shans_away has joined #css 23:27:40 projector has joined #css 23:41:33 jdaggett has joined #css 23:55:35 myles has joined #css 23:59:09 hey do we have a more specific date figure out for Sydney f2f? https://wiki.csswg.org/planning/sydney-2016