- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 21:35:34 -0700
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Summary:
- RESOLVED: Murakami-san added as editor of CSS3 Lists
- Discussed various open CSS2.1 issues, various actions assigned.
- RESOLVED: Accept Yves proposal for CSS2.1 Issue 139
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-139
- RESOLVED: Accept fantasai's proposal for issue 146
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-146
- RESOLVED: Accept dbaron's proposal for CSS2.1 Issue 122
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-122
- RESOLVED: No change for CSS2.1 Issue 144 (it's a quirks mode question)
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-144
- RESOLVED: Removes nonsensical sentence listed in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Dec/0322.html
for CSS2.1 Issue 147
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-147
- RESOLVED: Accept fantasai's proposal for CSS 2.1 Issue 153
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-153
- RESOLVED: Add Bert's example about clearance for CSS2.1 Issue 157
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-157
====== Full minutes below ======
Present:
César Acebal
Tab Atkins
Bert Bos
Arron Eicholz
Elika Etemad
Simon Fraser
Sylvain Galineau
Daniel Glazman
Brad Kemper
Hĺkon Wium Lie
Peter Linss
Alex Mogilevsky
Shinyu Murakami (via IRC)
<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/05/26-CSS-irc
Scribe: Tab Atkins
Administrative
--------------
glazou: first item is about adding murakami-san as new editor for css3 lists.
<fantasai> +1
glazou: any objection?
RESOLVED: Murakami-san added as 3rd editor of css3 lists
<murakami> thanks
CSS2.1 Actions
--------------
glazou: First lets review the issues for everyone.
glazou: dbaron is not on the call yet.
glazou: elika?
fantasai: I haven't done any work on issues yet.
glazou: When will you?
fantasai: Early june, as I reported last week.
glazou: Sylvain?
sylvaing: Anton got back to me; we're basically done, but he's asking me
to reconsider something. I need to read through the whole
thread which is very time-consuming.
glazou: You're confident you can have a proposal for the issue by next week?
sylvaing: Yes.
glazou: Bert?
Bert: 120 and 121 are being added. I don't think any of the others
need further discussion, though.
glazou: Arron?
arronei: Created test cases, but had some problems with uploading
them last night; access was blocked for some reason.
glazou: Tab?
<glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-138
TabAtkins: I'm still discussing issue 161 with boris, but I think I'm
finally to a point where he's happy with the wording (even
if not with the proposal itself). I should have it wrapped
up this week.
CSS2.1 Issues
-------------
glazou: issue 138
TabAtkins: I think that what fantasai explained as what it's "trying
to say" is correct, but as boris says, we need to clarify it.
fantasai: What about abspos?
TabAtkins: Abspos elements act like blocks anyway, so that case should
be less ambiguous.
<fantasai> So we want something like appending "If any floats are
contained by the anonymous box, then those floats are
shifted, too." ?
glazou: Who volunteers to write a proposal?
TabAtkins: I'll try it out.
ACTION Tab: Write proposal for issue 138
<glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-139
glazou: Next, issue 139, a grammar issue.
TabAtkins: Did we agree that that's a valid report? If so, then it's
clearly an error - the escape character should never appear
unescaped.
glazou: Any objections?
RESOLVED: Accept Yves's proposal for issue 139.
Bert: I'll make the edit.
<glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-146
glazou: Issue 146.
glazou: Seems pretty simple. The marker box shouldn't be optional.
TabAtkins: Are we going to accept elika's wording?
glazou: It can be more explicit.
fantasai: What do you mean?
glazou: It should say "no marker when list-style-type:none", etc.
fantasai: That's specified in the list section; this is the box
generation section.
RESOLVED: Accept fantasai's proposal for issue 146.
<glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-118
glazou: Now to the issues with no owner at all. First is 118.
* fantasai wishes dbaron was here
Bert: It's imprecise. The glyphs aren't centered, the "em box" is.
TabAtkins: Yeah, not sure if we want to use the *term* "em box",
but that's definitely the idea we're shooting for.
fantasai: What other term would we use?
TabAtkins: What about inline-blocks?
fantasai: This section is about text; you need the assumption of
a font for this to make sense.
bradk: Some glyphs are taller than others.
TabAtkins: Yeah, but their em boxes are the same if their font-size is.
bradk: Do we define "em box" anywhere?
TabAtkins: No. It's a standard definition in fonts, but we should
probably add a token definition of it.
glazou: So we more or less agree; who's going to write the proposal?
<sylvaing> thought the leading was line-height-font-size and went
on top/bottom of the content area where the glyphs go
Bert: I guess we need some text that says we assume each glyph is
defined relative to an "em box".
fantasai: And we assume that the font-size is mapped to the em box.
<fantasai> or rather, the em box is mapped to the font size
ACTION Bert: Write proposal for issue 118.
<glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-122
glazou: Next is issue 122, related to fonts.
glazou: Reporter complains that the spec is redefining what "serif"
and "sans serif" means.
glazou: And we have a proposal from dbaron to solve that.
TabAtkins: Agreed with dbaron's proposal - fonts already know if
they're serif or whatever, and we can just have a weak
description of what the terms mean.
<howcome> http://somuchpun.com/?s=serif
RESOLVED: Accept dbaron's proposal to resolve issue 122.
ACTION Tab: Propose text for resolving issue 122.
<glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-140
glazou: I think david's proposal makes sense - it's probably the
only way to solve this problem.
TabAtkins: I don't have a deep enough understanding of the core
grammar to know how good of a solution dbaron's proposal
is, or what a better one is.
Bert: Another option, certainly, is to change the example that
spawned the issue, and remove the braces from between the
parens?
glazou: People could still write that sort of thing, correct?
Bert: Right, people can write things that can't be tokenized, and
we just don't know what to do with them.
glazou: I don't think that's a good enough solution.
Bert: Do we want to define the meaning of every possible bytestream?
I don't think that's needed.
glazou: I think it would be useful. ^_^
glazou: I recommend waiting for dbaron to attend a call and get his input.
Bert: It's probably okay to allow braces inside parens, but I'm
still a little bit afraid.
glazou: We'll revisit next week, and move on for now.
<glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-142
TabAtkins: We do need a definition of what the "ancestor box" is,
because Boris and I disagreed on that while discussing
my abspos-in-tables issue.
glazou: So what's suggested to rewrite?
Bert: Make it clear what the ancestor box is in all contexts.
TabAtkins: Boris says 3 instances, and I'd *like* to depend on
the definition of "ancestor box" in my table issue too.
Bert: If it's only in chapter 10, i can do it.
* sylvaing does, in his weaker moments, hope CSS gives box generation
the HTML5 parsing algorithm treatment.
* TabAtkins wants to do that too.
<glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-144
TabAtkins: I don't think we need to worry about 144 - it's pointed
out that the reporter's results were from looking at it
in quirks mode; the spec defines it precisely and all
browsers agree in standards mode.
glazou: So no action on this. Any objections?
RESOLVED: No action on 144 - not a problem.
<glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-145
fantasai: The i18nWG has been going back and forth on issue 145
for a while.
fantasai: We probably need to defer this for them.
TabAtkins: i18n is having a meeting for bidi in html second week of
june that fantasai and i are attending. We can make sure
it's discussed then.
<glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-147
fantasai: It makes sense to recommend scaling for images, but not
necessarily for java applets, etc.
fantasai: Sometimes you just want to rescale the box and just tell
the replaced element to redraw itself in the new space.
fantasai: Frex, java applet or iframe.
fantasai: So I don't think it makes sense to specify how a replaced
element draws in normative terms here.
TabAtkins: Agreed.
RESOLVED: No change for issue 147
<glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-153
TabAtkins: I think the test case just needs to be updated, no spec
change, right?
glazou: fantasai says the spec is vague.
TabAtkins: Ah, yes, I see that now.
glazou: Any objections to elika's proposal?
arronei: That means the test case needs to be updated too.
TabAtkins: fantasai already provided an updated test case.
RESOLVED: Accept fantasai's proposal to resolve issue 153.
Action fantasai: Write text for 153.
<fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Dec/0322.html
fantasai: Wrt the previous issue, 147, there's an email not tracked
in the issue list pointing out a sentence that doesn't
make any sense at all.
fantasai: I think it should be removed, and Tantek agrees.
* sylvaing YES! I could never understand this.
* sylvaing ...now imagine documenting to the EU whether/how you comply
with this one
Bert: I don't see what's wrong with it.
fantasai: If you specify a height, the width of the replaced element's
box may not be intrinsic.
Bert: Oh, in that sense.
fantasai: It's weird, and it doesn't add anything since everything is
otherwise specified. So I think we should just remove it.
RESOLVED: Remove the offending sentence in visudet.
<glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-157
TabAtkins: I don't think it's circular. I think it can look like it to
a surface reading, but it's just a statement of constraints.
glazou: dbaron and bert have long messages explaining why it's not circular.
fantasai: Bert has a nice examle that I think would clarify things.
glazou: Can you add the example to the spec?
RESOLVED: Add Bert's example about clearance, otherwise no change for issue 157.
<glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-158
TabAtkins: This isn't even a change, just a clarification.
ACTION Tab: Suggest text to resolve issue 158.
<glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-159
TabAtkins: dbaron already has some rough text to resolve the issue.
fantasai: I can take this; I'll probably be doing other margin-related
things anyway.
<glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-114
glazou: Anyone know what SVG is doing about 114?
arronei: Chris sent me a message about it yesterday.
glazou: So they're working on it, excellent.
Meeting closed.
* fantasai will not be on the call next week
* glazou neither
Received on Thursday, 27 May 2010 04:36:12 UTC