15:54:56 RRSAgent has joined #css 15:54:56 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/05/24-css-irc 15:54:58 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:54:58 Zakim has joined #css 15:55:00 Zakim, this will be Style_CSS FP 15:55:00 ok, trackbot 15:55:01 Meeting: Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Working Group Teleconference 15:55:01 Date: 24 May 2017 15:55:23 present+ 15:57:09 antenna has joined #css 15:59:06 present+ 16:00:02 regrets+ dauwhe 16:00:07 smfr has joined #css 16:00:11 present+ 16:00:21 Present+ antonp 16:00:36 dauwhe, we're not good enough for you anymore :/ 16:01:14 present+ 16:01:15 present+ 16:02:10 ericwilligers has joined #css 16:02:30 present+ 16:02:31 alex_antennahouse has joined #css 16:02:41 present+ 16:03:07 present+ 16:03:10 SribeNick: fantasai 16:03:18 present+ 16:03:27 present+ 16:03:55 present+ 16:04:06 Florian has joined #css 16:04:21 bcampbell has joined #css 16:05:54 Rossen: Any other agenda items? 16:05:56 Rossen: no? 16:05:57 Present+ 16:06:08 Rossen: Ok, anyone willing to bikeshedify css-backgrounds? 16:06:49 Rossen: would prefer if fantasai didn't have to do it 16:07:42 fantasai: Shouldn't be too much work: don't need to convert to Markdown, bikeshed handles HTML just fine. Just need to fix property/value links and boilerplate 16:07:44 present+ 16:07:48 this https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/1209 16:07:54 ?? volunteers 16:08:13 Rossen: Is anything else needed here for css-conditional? 16:08:20 dbaron: Haven't had a chance to look 16:08:39 s/??/ericwilligers/ 16:08:40 Rossen: Ok, please have a look then. action item was you and zcorpan to resolve disrepencies between CSSOM and css-conditional 16:08:40 present+ 16:08:57 Rossen: Let us know if this PR is all we need, or we need more. 16:09:06 Rossen: I've been tracking writing-modes issues 16:09:15 present+ 16:09:15 Rossen: Anything else besides the issue that's open? 16:09:44 fantasai: I need to respond to ChrisL's transition request questions 16:09:53 Rossen: Fonts L3, are we done moving things to L4? 16:09:55 present+ 16:10:08 Rossen: Is ChrisL or Myles here? 16:10:41 Rossen: Thanks to everyone for work on moving these things forward. 16:10:55 Topic: Update to Geometry API 16:11:11 zcorpan: It's been a few years 16:11:14 myles has joined #css 16:11:16 zcorpan: since last publication of this spec 16:11:26 zcorpan: But recent activity on implementations, spec fixes, tests 16:11:34 zcorpan: seems like reasonable time to republish 16:11:46 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fx/2017AprJun/0011.html 16:11:47 Rossen: New publication has lots of changes, right? So goes back to WD? 16:11:56 zcorpan: Yes, seems reasonable, since a long time since CR and lots of changes 16:11:57 bradk has joined #css 16:11:58 Rossen: OK 16:12:09 Rossen: Objections to WD of Geometry API? 16:12:18 ship it 16:12:20 fantasai: sgtm 16:12:20 present+ myles 16:12:30 present+ 16:12:40 RESOLVED: Updated WD of Geometry API 16:12:41 fremy has joined #css 16:13:07 Rossen: Spec currently lists two people who are no longer active in CSSWG as editors 16:13:16 Rossen: means spec effectively has only one editor, zcorpan 16:13:24 Rossen: Do you need help with the spec? 16:13:31 zcorpan: not atm 16:13:47 Rossen: ok, good, then second request would be to move Dirk and Rik to former editors 16:13:51 zcorpan: ok 16:14:02 RESOLVED: Dirk and Rik to former editors of geometry API 16:14:21 Topic: [css-writing-modes] Orthogonal Flow Constraint: viewport vs scroller 16:14:23 https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1391 16:14:33 fantasai: Realized that I hadn't done ??? 16:14:33 Github issue: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1391 16:14:48 fantasai: we have 2 impl and a test that i need to check in 16:14:58 fantasai: the issue is about when you have orthogonal flows and a scroller 16:15:36 fantasai: normally when htere's no constraint of the child... the height is determined by a shink-to-fit formula 16:15:52 fantasai: better to use the hight of the nearest ancestor 16:16:02 Rossen_: I recall discussing this 16:16:05 s/nearest ancestor/nearest scrollable ancestor/ 16:16:30 Rossen_: we already agreed to do this for the reasons you outline 16:16:42 Rossen_: are there any other opinions or alternative proposals? 16:16:49 Rossen_: if not we can just resolve 16:16:58 Rossen_: I will take that as a no 16:17:58 RESOLVED: shrink-to-fit formula for auto-sized orthogonal flows uses nearest scrollable ancestor, not necessarily viewport 16:18:01 Rossen_: Does that change go to Level 1? 16:18:08 s/1/3/ 16:18:11 Rossen_: any other knobs or switches ? 16:18:30 fantasai: we have the change, the WG resolution, test case and implementations 16:18:43 Rossen_: ok great 16:18:56 Github topic: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/708 16:19:09 Topic: [css-values] clarify that most (all?) high-dpi devices anchor on pixel, rather than physical, unit 16:19:19 that went to the wrong github issue 16:19:43 Github topic: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/708 16:20:08 fantasai: PR for ??? 16:20:18 fantasai: reviewing the changes to update V&U spec 16:20:24 fantasai: one implemented the resolution here 16:20:41 fantasai: also switch the ... anchor category 16:20:47 fantasai: 2 categories for anchor units 16:20:56 fantasai: pixel viewing angle unit 16:21:04 fantasai: other is physical unit 16:21:21 fantasai: css is based on 96 DPI and px is viewing angle 16:21:33 fantasai: used to be independent but changed due to web compat 16:21:50 fantasai: when you print, 12pt is actually 12pt 16:22:08 fantasai: on screen we do the 96DPI thing and round to actual pixels to make it look nice on the screen 16:22:19 fantasai: print and high-dpi together... 16:22:34 fantasai: the change also moved devices with unusual viewing distances 16:22:56 fantasai: so for print with unusual viewing distance, which category? 16:23:14 fantasai: now it's in the physical category 16:23:19 fantasai: do we want to revert the change? 16:23:32 Rossen_: So, going to echo florian's point... 16:23:40 Rossen_: since this is a SHOULD, do we need to change? 16:23:48 seems like if you're taking content written for another device and print it on a billboard, you want your "12pt" font to be bigger than 12pt 16:23:58 fantasai: if we don't have anything we want to change we shouldn't change from the previous PR 16:24:15 dbaron: the change seems reasonable to me 16:24:43 dbaron: if you take content designed from a different device and print to a billboard you may want the viewing distance thing 16:24:58 dbaron: OTOH if you design for the billboard you may want physical units 16:25:21 plinss: seems like this should be a choice when you're printing 16:25:24 plinss: not happy with either change 16:25:27 where is the change? 16:25:42 plinss: it's a print-time choice based on the content, device, etc 16:25:47 plinss: shouldn't mandate from the spec 16:25:54 Rossen_: right, that's why it's a should 16:25:59 tantek: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/713/files 16:26:01 Rossen_: might be enough 16:26:19 tantek, https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/713/files 16:26:20 plinss: I think that's not what should means 16:26:43 bradk: seems like a viewing angle situation 16:27:22 bradk: language an opt-in, in ebook(?) you can go either way 16:27:45 fremy: can't you leave it as choice per device? 16:28:08 plinss: need all devices to be consistent 16:28:19 s/ebook/e-paper 16:28:37 tantek: i'm confused by the example of billboard vs print 16:28:51 fantasai: it's an example of a device with an unusual viewing distance 16:29:10 tantek: looking at the diff in github... billboard can be print or screen 16:29:35 dbaron: the PR changed printed billboard because of the way it worded it 16:29:47 fantasai: [citing spec?] 16:29:59 fantasai: not a subset of screen media 16:30:18 fantasai: 1 category is high-res, second is low-res and unusual viewing distance 16:30:41 fantasai: before you could interpret print with unusual viewing distance as either 16:30:49 fantasai: now it can only be that for screen media 16:31:18 fantasai: becomes ??? 16:31:37 someone: sounds sensible 16:31:38 Proposal is to move the lcose parentheses after "including high-resolution devices" 16:31:43 s/someone/tantek/ 16:31:52 For screen media (including high-resolution devices), lower-resolution devices, and devices with unusual viewing distances, 16:32:10 Rossen_: sounds pretty good 16:32:11 s/, /, / 16:32:17 I agree 16:32:17 fantasai: ok, i will make the change 16:32:25 plinss: happy with the change 16:32:36 plinss: maybe provide an opt-in later 16:32:59 ScribeNick: fantasai 16:33:06 Proposed resolution: move the lcose parentheses after "including high-resolution devices" 16:33:50 +1 to proposal 16:33:52 RESOLVED: Move the close parens afte r"including high-resolution devices" 16:33:55 scribenick: myles 16:34:14 Topic: [css-values] Parsing " | " or " | " 16:34:20 Topic: CSS Values and Units: ambiguous zero 16:34:34 github topic: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/489 16:34:37 Github issue: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/489 16:35:10 fantasai: we have a situation where you can have or (or & & it's not clear what happens with unitless zero. 16:35:25 fantasai: tab-size & line-height. which of these values does the 0 parse to? 16:35:31 jamesn has joined #css 16:35:37 fantasai: currently there is no behavior difference for these properties, but in the fiture it might matter 16:35:46 Rossen: so where would it matter? 16:35:54 cases are like | 16:35:55 Rossen: in calc(), parsing would fail if you do it wrong 16:36:03 properties affected include tab-size and line-height 16:36:14 Rossen: in another expression, in grid gaps, or something else, it will always be interpreted as a 16:36:26 fantasai: xidorn says that 0 lengths get serialized as "0px" 16:36:30 Rossen: the computed style? 16:36:32 fantasai: i dunno 16:36:48 fantasai: TabAtkins says that the OM might want to make a distinction 16:36:56 s/OM/Typed OM/ 16:37:16 fantasai: we could make a rule "if you're in an imbiguous situation, it parses as a number" 16:37:37 s/imbig/ambig/ 16:37:40 Rossen: yes, and later in the cascade, you could typecast the number to an internal unit type, imlementation-specific, and the implementation could handle it 16:37:50 jnurthen has joined #css 16:38:07 Rossen: the question is: what happens when you serialize it back out? Do you return the number or a real reallyrealies length 16:38:46 Rossen: for us, if we have to tag along an additional information about what i just described, it's going to be difficult 16:38:51 Rossen: not impossible though. 16:39:01 Rossen: doesn't buy authors much. 16:39:10 Rossen: (unless we have a specific example) 16:39:20 fantasai: we might not fix it, or we can say it parses as an integer 16:39:25 fantasai: those are the two options 16:39:38 fantasai: dbaron? 16:39:51 fantasai: 16:40:07 dbaron: i thought it would be anumber 16:40:12 fantasai: spec doesn't say that 16:40:32 fantasai: can we resolve? 16:40:37 Rossen: i have no problem keeping it as a number 16:40:40 Rossen: objections? 16:40:52 Rossen: to specify it as a number if it isn't already 16:41:16 RESOLVED: Unitless zeros are parsed as numbers if it is ambiguous whether they are a or a 16:41:20 Topic: CSS Values and Units: clamping calc() 16:41:29 github topic: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/434 16:42:01 Rossen_ has joined #css 16:42:01 fantasai: this question was about when things get clamped, if you have a property which doesn't accept negative lengths, for example, the spec says that the used value is clamped, but the computed value is not clamped, and there is some disagreement about whether that is waht is implemented 16:42:20 fantasai: dbaron says that calc() is computed at computed value liek font size 16:42:38 dbaron's comment: 16:42:39 For properties where the computed value is a length (i.e., calc()s are computed at computed value time) like font-size, we clamp to nonnegative values at computed value time. For properties where the calc() expression is part of the computed value space (like padding-left) we have clamping at used value time (both in the GetComputedStyle code and in the code that actually uses the value). 16:42:46 I think the spec is still wrong for properties that accept calc() but where calc() is not part of the computed value space since it can be fully computed by computed value time (e.g., font-size). 16:42:56 https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/434#issuecomment-243933445 16:43:25 Rossen: to further TabAtkins's latest point, some or most of this is referring to getComputedStyle() which returns used values not computed values 16:43:35 jamesn has joined #css 16:43:39 Rossen: it seems like WebKit and blink don't have a separate notion of computed values, and this is a transient value for them 16:44:13 dbaron: there is some value which gets inherited. If you have "25% - 30px" and you say this is the computed value and it gets inherited to something which clamps differently, it should be clamped differently 16:44:21 Rossen: but you don't know that 25% gets resolved to something > 25px 16:44:26 fantasai: but you do know this for some properties 16:44:35 fantasai: for padding-left you don't know this, but font-size, you do know this 16:44:55 fantasai: you can resolve this at computed value time, and you need to because the value at font-size needs to be computed to a length in order to resolve em 16:45:03 Rossen: font-size is the only property which resolves percentages outside of layout 16:45:05 fantasai: dbaron: no 16:45:13 Rossen: .... 16:45:17 Rossen: ok. 16:45:28 fantasai: dbaron, do you have a proposal? 16:45:34 dbaron: not off the top of my head 16:45:37 dbaron: i could write one 16:45:42 fantasai: yes please 16:46:05 dbaron: we need a distinction where calc() is resolved at computed value time and where calc() is part of a computed value. these needs separate rules 16:46:06 fantasai: ok. 16:46:22 fantasai: in the first case, we would do the clamping at computed value time, and the second case, it would be at used value time 16:46:23 dbaron: yes 16:46:27 Rossen: how is this observable? 16:46:44 dbaron: the difference is observable through inheritance. but also, some fo the combinations of ways of specifying it, it doesn't make any sense 16:46:57 fantasai: let's resolve 16:47:01 Rossen: we need a proposal 16:47:17 fantasai: i can write a proposal 16:47:22 fantasai: w/ dbaron's review 16:47:37 Rossen: let's see the prose before we resolve 16:47:55 fantasai: sounds good 16:48:14 Topic: CSS Values and Units: numeric expression denominators 16:48:17 github topic: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1241 16:48:41 fantasai: we originally intended the denominator of calc() to have a numeric expression 16:48:49 fantasai: like calc(13 / (5 + 3)) 16:48:54 fantasai: we don't like units because unit math is hard 16:49:01 fantasai: numeric math is ok though 16:49:16 fantasai: that isn't in the spec but we do have implementations. so we should add this to level 3 16:49:34 fantasai: level 4 doesn't make sense because level 4 will include all the unit math and everything which would be a superset of this 16:49:45 fantasai: but we need a resolution if we want to add it to level 3 16:49:48 Rossen: yes please 16:49:54 Rossen: 16:49:59 Rossen: any objections? 16:50:50 RESOLVED: Numeric expressions are explicitly allowed in denominators of calc() expressions 16:51:36 gregwhitworth: i'm trying to get the flex tests, uh 16:51:41 horrible noise/echo 16:52:08 Topic: Testing - Normalize linking to CSS properties 16:52:09 gregwhitworth: a lot of these tests go to ... sections .... so i need to know .... 16:52:16 Github issue: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1395 16:52:35 gregwhitworth: i want to clean up flex tests. 16:53:11 jensimmons++ 16:53:25 gregwhitworth: let's discuss this next week. sorry for the noise. 16:53:42 Rossen: you don't want to discuss this? 16:53:47 Rossen: please come up to my office 16:53:55 Rossen: 16:54:12 TOPIC: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1345 16:54:25 Github topic: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1345 16:54:39 s/write/right/ 16:54:51 fantasai: 16:55:07 fantasai: TabAtkins and i are leaning toward "yes" but we aren't particularly resolute 16:55:12 fantasai: any opinions/ 16:55:15 fantasai: ? 16:55:26 Rossen: it is unclear, if we say "no," what is observable? 16:55:40 fantasai: you can put a border on ::after, and the border will disappear if you say display:contents 16:55:45 fantasai: because the box will disappear 16:55:59 Rossen: was this just an oversight? 16:56:05 fantasai: just needed clarification 16:56:24 Rossen: this works for us 16:56:34 Rossen: objections? 16:56:58 RESOLVED: display:contents applies to ::after and ::before 16:57:12 Topic: Testing - Normalize linking to CSS properties 16:57:37 Github issue: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1395 16:57:53 gregwhitworth: a lot of tests are duplicative in the flex tests. They link to the flex bases or ... somewhere else 16:57:57 gregwhitworth: i want to make them uniform 16:58:06 gregwhitworth: someone commented 16:58:25 fantasai: we used to have the rule that you would link only to the table of contents 16:58:37 fantasai: i'm okay to revise that rule, but that rule was simple 16:58:52 gregwhitworth: that doesn't work because we need deeper links 16:59:00 gregwhitworth: except it's okay for now 16:59:29 fantasai: the main cause where it's tricky is that sections are usually what you want, except for flexbox and grid layout algorithms, each bullet point has an anchor, which allows us to be more fine-grained, and it makes more sense 17:00:06 gregwhitworth: gsnedders and i were talking about how to understand test coverage. If anyone has any suggestions, please mention them 17:00:18 dbaron: there are cases where the header is more stable across spec versions 17:00:29 fantasai: usually we have one section per property 17:00:31 Florian has joined #css 17:00:47 dbaron: not always, and there are often multiple properties in the same section. you might want to link to one individually 17:00:51 fantasai: we do that less now. 17:00:56 dbaron: css-align has a lot of these 17:01:05 Rossen: we are out of time, folks 17:01:13 Rossen: we have a solution which will unblock gregwhitworth and gsnedders 17:01:20 Rossen: need to continue investing in improving 17:01:27 Rossen: please help if you have ideas 17:01:31 s/where the header/where the property link/ 17:01:43 Rossen: do we need resolution? 17:01:47 gregwhitworth: no 17:01:56 Rossen: we will follow fantasai off a clifff 17:02:15 ~_~ 17:02:33 gregwhitworth: i'll link to sections for now, and if someone argues, we can revisit 17:02:40 plinss: let's not make a rule, instead, let's just do this for a single spec 17:02:45 Rossen: ok 17:02:49 plinss: ok 17:02:50 zcorpan has joined #css 17:03:15 Rossen: please start booking flights to paris 17:03:21 Rossen: byebye 17:03:37 zcorpan has joined #css 17:04:14 github topic: 17:04:15 tantek, haven't booked anything yet 17:04:24 Topic: done 17:04:38 trackbot, end meeting 17:04:38 Zakim, list attendees 17:04:38 As of this point the attendees have been Rossen_, zcorpan, antenna, antonp, tantek, smfr, plinss, alex_antennahouse, fantasai, tgraham, jensimmons, flackr, dbaron, astearns, liam, 17:04:41 ... melanierichards, Bert, myles, bradk 17:04:46 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 17:04:46 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/24-css-minutes.html trackbot 17:04:47 RRSAgent, bye 17:04:47 I see no action items