Cascading Style Sheets
Working Group Blog

MInutes and Resolutions 2008-07-16

By fantasai, 17 July 2008 (Permalink)
Categories: resolutions

No resolutions, just discussion and some resulting action items.

• Discussed charter. The "success criteria" may need some tweaking, and everything's dependency on CSS2.1 needs to be noted.
• Discussed Color module. Publication request will be sent out today.
• Discussed new test suite harness. See fantasai's message to public-css-testsuite for background information. (The prototype is currently running as Member-only until it's been vetted for correctness/security. It will eventually be public and open source.)
• Discussed need to build a test management system to handle submissions, reviews, and test suite coverage reports.
• Discussed whether forming a CSS Test Suite Interest Group would be a useful exercise, if it would generate interest and activity from people not in the WG or only overhead for W3C.

Full minutes and discussion

MInutes and Resolutions 2008-07-09

By fantasai, 16 July 2008 (Permalink)
Categories: resolutions

• Resolved: Accepted Melinda's proposal to make CSS2.1 Section 2.3 (but not its subsections) informative. (CSS2.1 Issue 63)

• Resolved: Unknown media types are treated as false: when negated they become true.

• Resolved: Otherwise, invalid media queries are dropped (ignored).

• Discussed marquee: people want clarifications to its interaction with overflow/overflow-x/overflow-y/scrolling.

• Discussed logo contest: Jason will talk with Ian Jacobs about this and the web site redesign.

Full minutes

Resolutions 2008-07-02

By fantasai, 2 July 2008 (Permalink)
Categories: resolutions

• Discussed charter and module table
• Media Queries has outstanding comments
• CSSWG to advocate separation of content and style and not using generated content for actual document content via blog article and note in CSS2.1.
• Status update on CSS Variables and Selectors
• Discussed some CSS2.1 issues, no conclusion yet

Resolutions 2008-06-25

By fantasai, 25 June 2008 (Permalink)
Categories: resolutions

Resolved

• Use the CSSWG wiki to compile a table with information about each spec we are working on, including:
  • brief description
  • status of the document (including anticipated next state)
  • status of implementations (including expected implementations)
  • status of test suite (including expectations)
  • issues/blocking items
  • reasons why we want this, why it's important
  • link to the spec
• Create very short list of deliverables for the charter and put all other items in a normative scope section. Items in the scope section can be worked on, but not advanced through the REC track unless the charter is amended to list them as a deliverable.

Full minutes

Resolutions 2008-06-11

By fantasai, 16 June 2008 (Permalink)
Categories: resolutions

• Resolved: Add note about CSSWG members list being public to charter, submit to W3C management.

• Resolved: Publish CSS Color Level 3 Last Call Working Draft asap after Bert's review; set last call period for six weeks; ask SVG and XSL working groups for comments.

• Resolved: Publish flexbox module as a First Public Working Draft.

• Resolved: Peter's draft for disclaimer for IRC logs accepted with s/working communication/informal working communication/.

• Resolved: Proposal accepted for CSS2.1 Issue 8.

• Resolved: Proposal accepted for CSS2.1 Issue 6.

• Resolved: Proposal accepted for CSS2.1 Issue 24.

• Resolved: Proposal accepted for CSS2.1 Issue 39.

• Resolved: Accept proposed Media Queries changes unless comments sent by next telecon.

Full minutes.

Resolutions 2008-06-04

By fantasai, 9 June 2008 (Permalink)
Categories: resolutions

Resolved

• No multiple borders feature in CSS Backgrounds and Borders Level 3.
• No percentage border-width feature in CSS Backgrounds and Borders Level 3.
• Bert and fantasai to continue work on defining inner shaodws for CSS Backgrounds and Borders Level 3.
• Include syntax for positioning background images from corners other than the top left in next CSS Backgrounds and Borders Level 3 draft, ask for feedback on whether that syntax should be kept, changed, or dropped.
• Approved publication of next CSS Template Layout Level 3 (formerly Advanced Layout) as Working Draft.
• David Baron's changes to CSS Color Level 3 approved.
• CSS Color Level 3 to be published as Last Call Working Draft.

Other notes

• Discussed charter. Module list to be drafted by Peter Linsss. Chairs feel Selectors Level 4 would distract from other work and should not make the cut.
• Discussed test suite review process. WG wants to make a list of active, approved reviewers and to encourage everyone to help review testcases. fantasai will work on putting together a system for commenting on testcases to make it easier for people to get involved.

Full minutes. Discuss on www-style.

Notes and Resolutions 2008-05-28

By fantasai, 2 June 2008 (Permalink)
Categories: resolutions

• Discussed individual modules in charter and what the deliverables are. Advocates expressed their expectations:

  Expected RECs

  • CSS Namespaces
  • Selectors
  • Color
  • Media Queries

  Expected CRs

  • MultiCol
  • Paged Media
  • Backgrounds and Borders
  • Ruby
  • GCPM
  • Fonts
  • Template Layout
  • Marquee
  • Variables
  • Box Model
  • Values and Units
  • Generated Content
  • Animations and Transitions
  • Transforms
  • CSSOM View

  Expected WDs

  • Text
  • Text Layout
  • Extended Box Model
  • Flexbox
  • Grid Positioning
  • Lists
  • Tables

  WG wants to expect REC for CSS2.1, fantasai thinks it's possible but not likely.
• Resolved: Accepted proposed wording for CR Exit Criteria

Full minutes

Charter Discussions 2008-05-21

By fantasai, 24 May 2008 (Permalink)
Categories: general, resolutions

Almost the entire 2008-05-21 meeting was a discussion of the module list that is not yet drafted for the charter. Several conflicting arguments were brought up. Here's an unordered summary of points in the discussion.

• The criteria agreed upon for adding modules to the charter is significant implementation interest from at least two implementors and an advocate within the working group to drive spec editing.
• An item must be in scope for the charter for us to work on it, because companies want to be aware of any potential patent commitments they must make by participating.
• In the past the CSSWG has had a long list of modules in scope for the charter. Few of these make significant progress during the charter period.
• W3C Management is unhappy that the CSSWG hasn't been completing all the work in its charter.
• Adobe is particularly uncomfortable with keeping all the modules in the charter list right now and threatened to resign if they were all kept. Patent commitments were a cited concern. Another was that the WG can't finish everything on the proposed list in the 2-year charter period... (no explanation why this is itself a problem for Adobe outside the patent policy concern).
• Bert points out that patent policy has several points of entry and exit, one of which is the charter, another of which is the publication of a an official public Working Draft.
• The CSSWG charter is very precise about what is in scope. The scope can be argued to be broad by the number of modules, but it is not in any way ambiguous because all items proposed for the charter have a working draft already.
• HP's representatives felt that items should not be cut from the charter in order to make the WG focus on high-priority items: that's the job the chairs should be doing. The high-priority items should be explicitly identified as what the WG plans to deliver, and the medium priority items should be in scope but explicitly listed as to be worked on as time and resources allow.
• Things can be added to the charter by an amendment process. Adobe was advocating that only high-priority items be in the charter and others added as necessary via amendment.
• Mozilla expressed concern that if lower-priority items are forced out of the charter they will be worked on elsewhere (e.g. in the WHATWG).
• Apple wants to develop their proposed extensions through standardization discussions rather than by forging ahead on their own.
• Molly expressed concern that items that don't make the charter won't appear to the public to be on the WG's radar. It was pointed out that the website has and will continue to have an exhaustive list.

The main conflict here seems to be whether

• items should be in scope of the charter if there is reasonable expectation of work being done on them, and charter amendments should be used only in unexpected circumstances
• or items should be in scope of the charter only if there is a firm commitment to work on them at this time, and the amendment process should be used more commonly to add things in as they gain priority.

The conclusion of the discussions was that the chairs should draft the module list section of the charter. Currently only the unedited summary of implementor feedback has been written.

Opera was not represented in these discussions. They also have not sent in any comments previously.

Full Minutes

Article search

All Words
Some Word
Entire phrase