- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 02:15:33 -0700
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Summary:
- Peter set up an agenda template for TPAC on the wiki
- Reviewed status of CSS2.1 issues
- RESOLVED: Accept fantasai's proposed text for CSS2.1 Issue 173 with option B
- RESOLVED: Accept proposal for CSS2.1 Issue 203
- RESOLVED: Mark min/max as at-risk, and mark % in min/max as at-risk. (css3-values)
- Reviewed Tab's proposal for counter style definitions
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0235.html
- Discussed how to get implementation reports for CSS2.1 test suite
====== Full minutes below ======
Present:
Tab Atkins
David Baron
John Daggett
Arron Eicholz
Elika Etemad
Simon Fraser
Sylvain Galineau
Daniel Glazman
Brad Kemper
Håkon Wium Lie
Peter Linss
Steve Zilles
<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/09/15-CSS-irc
Scribe: TabAtkins
Administrative
--------------
glazou: We need a wiki page for agenda items during TPAC.
glazou: Elika, can you set up a wiki page?
plinss: Already done.
<plinss> http://wiki.csswg.org/planning/tpac-2010
glazou: CSS 2.1 TestSuite. Deadline was Sep 15, where are we?
fantasai: I'm planning to build the testsuite and publish it later today.
fantasai: We'll call this one RC1.
CSS2.1 Issues
-------------
glazou: Issue 101, Tab sent an email that he wasn't ready.
TabAtkins: I'll have it before next call. I can do it by Friday.
glazou: Issue 154 is on Arron and John.
<glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-154
arronei: 154 I've submitted a few images. I think they're correct,
though Elika's called out a few things. I'll see today if
they need any altering.
arronei: We may not define all the terms that I use, but we use them
extensively in the spec.
arronei: We should probably define them.
glazou: Action on everyone - review the images for 154.
glazou: Next issue is 173, on Elika.
<glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-173
fantasai: There's a proposal on the list that I sent last night.
glazou: I think the first part is okay. We need to decide on the second part.
<dbaron> what's the url?
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0440.html
glazou: [lists the options for the second part from the email]
fantasai: I don't think either choice will end up doing much of anything
anyway; if anyone's putting a linebreak in generated content
they need to escape them anyway, and the spec uses \A all
over the place for it.
fantasai: So I don't think this is a compat or author issue, so we should
just choose whichever option is easier for implementors.
fantasai: I don't have a favored opinion.
dbaron: I think we handle our generated content the same as DOM text,
generally.
arronei: Basically the same in IE.
<dbaron> we could send it through a different path if we had to first,
but preferable not to.
glazou: So option B should match the current practice?
fantasai: This does mean that it's impossible to represent a carriage
return in a CSS document.
TabAtkins: I doubt that's important for anyone ever, so it's okay.
<glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-197
RESOLVED: For issue 173, accept part 1, accept option b for part 2.
<glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-159
TabAtkins: I haven't had time to process the changes in this draft.
glazou: I don't want to hold this forever, so please have review ready
for next week.
<glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0191.html
TabAtkins: There was discussion during the last telcon about the issue
that Boris raised with the definition, where a runin is
clearing one way and the block it runs into is clearing
another way.
fantasai: I posted a testcase to IRC and Arron looked at it.
glazou: So what needs to be done?
<glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-198
TabAtkins: We need a new proposal to address Boris' issue. I can do
that; we have all the info we need for it.
ACTION Tab: Post updated proposal to the list.
<trackbot> Created ACTION-266
<glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-199
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0433.html
Tab: Proposal I sent yesterday. I don't think it actually addresses
the issue properly, though, so there are some options in the
email for better solutions.
TabAtkins: I just need someone to sanitycheck this for me.
ACTION dbaron: Sanity-check the issue 199 proposal.
<trackbot> Created ACTION-267
<glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-198
<fantasai> http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/saved/635
<fantasai> arronei - what were the test results for that?
fantasai: Steve, you said during the meeting that there was a problem,
but you couldn't remember what it was.
<glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-203
TabAtkins: This needs layout people to look at this.
TabAtkins: But elika, arronei, and arronei's coworker all looked at
this together and thought it was probably good.
dbaron: I believe the change is fine with me, too.
RESOLVED: Accept fantasai's change for issue 203.
CSS3 Values: min() and max() at risk
------------------------------------
<glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0233.html
glazou: Agenda item 3, what should we do with min()/max()?
dbaron: All of the issues I found with min/max are issues with mixing
% and lengths.
dbaron: There were two ways to fix them - one was to remove min/max
entirely, and the other was to not allow % in min.
dbaron: There are cases where we reverse percentages for intrinsic widths.
dbaron: So if you have "width:100px, margin-right:50%", its container
is 200px to satisfy the conditions.
dbaron: There's no sensical way to do that with min/max, because there
are likely multiple solutions and it's difficult to distinguish
between them.
dbaron: There were other issues that I'd have to dig up.
TabAtkins: I say we do what fantasai suggests and mark it as at-risk.
szilles: That means we'd have to drop the feature, though. We wouldn't
have the choice to just drop % from the feature.
howcome: We can just list both.
howcome: Also you wanted to move this to Last Call, right?
dbaron: Yeah.
howcome: And you're willing to be co-editor?
dbaron: Sure.
howcome: I think the two of us should review it through.
fantasai: Agreed.
RESOLVED: Mark min/max as at-risk, and mark % in min/max as at-risk.
CSS3 Lists
----------
<glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0235.html
glazou: Topic, new list-style-types.
<glazou> +1 !!!
TabAtkins: I've taken over the list module. The module extends the number
of style types from 6 or 7 to around 100, but it still ends up
still missing a number of minority languages.
<glazou> http://www.w3.org/mid/AANLkTimg9ULp9vS212+G4f5-Oav63p=Eu+EadAzQmSyk@mail.gmail.com
<dbaron> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0381.html
TabAtkins: Rather than just forever extending the module with new types
and still missing things, I've proposed that we can address
all but 1 of the style-types with a set of 7 algorithms,
which we can then expose to the user so they can create their
own list-styles.
dbaron: I don't think you can get Hebrew simply like that.
TabAtkins: Actually, it's fairly simple to do. I have it written down already.
glazou: Including the forbidden words and such?
TabAtkins: Yes to the 16/17 thing. The other forbidden words aren't
forbidden in a list context, according to some hebrew i18n
people at google.
CSS2.1 Implementation Reports
-----------------------------
sylvaing: Is everyone okay with the 10/15 deadline for implementation
reports?
TabAtkins: Google should be cool with that.
dbaron: Not sure if we'll be able to. It's an awful lot of work.
* fantasai has some ideas, let's discuss with roc later this week
sylvaing: Can you be more specific?
fantasai: It's a question of resources at Mozilla, I think David said before.
fantasai: I think that Tab and I can possibly help if we can dig up
HP's system and ask for volunteers to help with the report,
because then it's easy for one person to submit a small
number of results.
sylvaing: So it sounds like we can get an impl report from Google.
Maybe from Moz. What about Opera?
howcome: I can't commit to a date.
<bradk> What about Apple?
<smfr> i imagine chrome's results would be equivalent to apple's (both webkit)
glazou: I'm a bit puzzled, because this is the last effort of a long line.
Everything depends on this last effort.
<bradk> I thought there was some forking between Safari and Chrome
glazou: All the browser vendors are interested in seeing CSS2.1 become
a Rec, but it *cannot* happen without this effort.
<smfr> bradk: very little at the css/layout level
<arronei> Actually Chrome and Safari have different results. If Apple
can also submit an implementation report that would be nice.
glazou: I understand the resource issues, but it's very important we get
this. It would be a very bad signal if we are late with CSS2.1
just because of impl reports.
<smfr> arronei: probably due to different snapshots of the webkit code
JohnJansen: At the FtF, Moz said it would be okay to do impl reports 30
days after test suite completion.
dbaron: I'm not sure those two discussions were related.
sylvaing: So should we move the date or what? It sounds like we had
agreement on the date, but apparently only 2 browsers are
going to make it.
fantasai: I think we should leave the date as the target, and I'll
talk with Tab after the call to see what we can do.
dbaron: Also I think that looking at an impl report will provide feedback
on the test suite.
sylvaing: Right, but we need impl report first.
glazou: I'd like to remind everyone that if we shift a lot, we'll be in
very bad shape in the w3c.
glazou: We publicly said that the impl reports will be ready on the 15
of oct. w3c staff read it.
glazou: So if we shift, we cannot shift a lot. We still need to be in
PR before the end of the year.
glazou: Listening to what david said, I'm scared if it's still possible.
sylvaing: At TPAC we shouldn't be worrying about 2.1, we should be taking
it to PR. I'm scared that it won't happen now.
glazou: So let's keep the timing right now, and see what Tab and Elika
can produce by next week.
sylvaing: And bring this up first thing next call.
Meeting closed.
<dbaron> Is it OK to test a beta for the implementation report?
<glazou> yes
<glazou> as soon as it's publically available
<glazou> and it is
<fantasai> tabatkins: datafile - http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/testinfo.data
<fantasai> harness info: http://wiki.csswg.org/test/harness
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2010 09:16:15 UTC