- From: Dael Jackson <daelcss@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 07:21:34 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CADhPm3u2YnUVt+Gpk9D-e+J3Vgj1ra=w+K+4589sbNxsNuhgLQ@mail.gmail.com>
GCPM and Page Floats
--------------------
- RESOLVED: Publish a new WD of GCPM.
- Page Floats will be discussed later when Hakon is on the call.
DOMMatrix, DOMPoint and DOMPointLiteral
----------------------------------------
- RESOLVED: Krit and Rik will be co-editors for DOMMatrix, DOMPoint
and DOMPointLiteral
- DECISION TAKEN TO EMAIL ON W3C-CSS-WG MAILING-LIST after
misunderstanding and invalid decision during call given the
request. Correction made by co-chair Daniel (glazou) after
end of the call.
Shapes
------
- All but one issue has been resolved.
- astearns requested another week to work through the syntax issues on
the remaining issue.
Elements
--------
- The different ways that various specs point to elements were
discussed.
- Some testing will be run to see what method current implementations
are using in order to determine how to proceed.
Task force meeting
------------------
- The group expressed an interest to have a few hours meeting with the
SVG WG during the Wednesday of the January F2F in Seattle.
- glazou will talk to Bert further about finding out if the WG will
meet on the Sunday of the November F2F.
=====FULL MINUTES BELOW======
Present:
Tantek Çelik
Dave Cramer
Elika Etemad
Daniel Glazman
Rebecca Hauck
Israel Hilerio
Koji Ishii
Dael Jackson
Brian Kardell (via IRC)
Brad Kemper
Edward O'Connor
Anton Prowse
Matt Rakow
Florian Rivoal
Simon Sapin
Dirk Schulze
Alan Stearns
Steve Zilles
Regrets:
Glenn Adams
Bert Bos
Peter Linss
Simon Pieters
Lea Verou
glazou: Let's get started.
glazou: As usual, additions to agenda?
glazou: I saw one from Simon referring to Elements.
glazou: One from Dirk about meetings.
glazou: Correct?
glazou: Anything else?
glazou: We could have a short meeting without a lot on the radar
<bkardell> sorry I am in an area with spotty cell signal, keep losing
call
<bkardell> I will follow via irc
GCPM and Page Floats
--------------------
glazou: Is Hakon on?
florian: I don't think he said he'd be here so he said we should take
it next time.
glazou: Well, we decided not to discuss without the editor on the call
and so I'm not willing to discuss without Hakon.
astearns: There's not much to discuss about GCPM so we could resolve
for a WD.
glazou: We did in the F2F.
glazou: We're just waiting for the doc to be ready.
florian: If it's done we can green light Hakon.
glazou: Remember, the working group members decided to decide only if
the editor here.
florian: It's not complicated, so we should be okay without the
author. If it's complicated we need the author.
glazou: I agree.
glazou: Do people who made comments want to block?
dauwhe: I'm okay.
SimonSapin: I made comments, but I don't think they are blocking WD.
glazou: Any objections with publication?
RESOLVED: Publish a new WD of GCPM
glazou: Given the PageFloats discussion on the mailing list, I suggest
we wait.
DOMMatrix, DOMPoint and DOMPointLiteral
----------------------------------------
Krit1: I'd like to publish a new ED
krit1: We combined into Geometry API
krit1: It would be with me and Rik as co-editors
krit1: Does the WG agree?
glazou: No objection about co-editors
glazou: I'd like to hear about publishing new ED
glazou: I don't think you need permission for ED
krit1: Ok
<SimonSapin> krit1: just ED at this point
glazou: Any object about co-editors?
[silence]
RESOLVED: krit and Rik as co-editors for DOMMatrix, DOMPoint and
DOMPointLiteral
Shapes
------
astearns: I asked for comments, there's one issue remaining.
astearns: There's one comment left about basic shape functions,
astearns: I'd like to work through the syntax and ask for LC next
week.
glazou: Is this in reference to Hakon's comments?
astearns: No, Tab and fantasai's comments about taking commas out of
functional notations.
astearns: Also about if we need two sections about circles when we
have radial gradients.
astearns: Also waiting to hear if it would work for rectangle and
polygon.
glazou: So defer to next week
<BradK_> Regarding GCPM, I hope more people can review this idea (not
to block publication of working draft):
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Oct/0086.html
<bkardell> ? is there any good simple rule for when to comma/not?
<stearns> bkardell: there's a link to a principles wiki in fantasai's
message (and one of my responses)
<bkardell> not from a parser perspective but just in general
<bkardell> stearns: thx - sorry, a little behind list
Elements
--------
glazou: Can you paste URL?
<SimonSapin>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Oct/0043.html
SimonSapin: We have two features that refer to elements
SimonSapin: This is elements in images 4
SimonSapin: And cross referencing in GCPM
SimonSapin: Elements uses an ID selector, GCPM uses a URL
<SimonSapin> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-gcpm/#cross-references
SimonSapin: This is two mechanisms to do same thing; we should pick
one.
<fantasai> This has been an open issue for a while
* tantek reviews the agenda
* krit1 tanktek no worries, CSS3 UI isn't on the agenda
<tantek> krit1 - however the element/id selector thing may affect
nav-* properties which are in CSS3-UI
<krit> Maybe we need to go back to LC for CSS3-YI :)
<tantek> krit1 - nav-* directional properties are implemented with
test cases per the thread on www-style
glazou: I understand why we use the URL in GCPM, because a book can be
a set of docs.
SimonSapin: URL can be a reference to other documents, Hakon seems OK
to not do that.
SimonSapin: The thing with URLs, we need to define how a fragment is
mapped to an element.
SimonSapin: This isn't same as HTML
SimonSapin: We need to define or refer to something that defines
glazou: There's a prevision that the name shares same value space,
glazou: All browsers should do the same for most recent HTML.
glazou: In practice when you use fragment identity in URL it
references to one element if it's a name or an arbitrary
element.
SimonSapin: And that's HTML?
glazou: Yes.
SimonSapin: Do we want them to depend on HTML?
SimonSapin: Or do we need a definition that works for any document
type?
glazou: I'm not sure I understand.
glazou: Fragment identifier points to one item.
SimonSapin: As far as I know CSS can work on anything including HTML.
SimonSapin: Are we fine with changing that?
<tantek> q+ to note that nav-* directional properties use just "#id"
as value
* tantek refers to http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-ui/#nav-dir
glazou: What is the spec again that defines fragment identities?
glazou: Outside of CSS?
glazou: There's a doc in the consortium space making the relationship
SimonSapin: That's what I'm missing.
glazou: Since there's a potential solution without changing specs, we
should keep this to the mailing list.
SimonSapin: That's fine.
tantek: Sorry to make this more complex, there's a third method used
in CSS UI.
tantek: It's similar to element, but not an element function.
tantek: Up, down, etc all take values similar to #ID.
tantek: Not only that, we have test cases and two implementors.
tantek: I thought I should point it out, but I don't have strong
feeling on syntax.
tantek: But we should keep that in mind;
tantek: There's real world content using it.
SimonSapin: Is that in terms with selectors?
tantek: Completely inline.
glazou: I guess question is is # a fragment identifier?
tantek: The wording right now is fragment URL.
tantek: It's weak working.
<florian> The <id> value consists of a '#' character followed by an
identifier, similar to a fragment identifier in a URL. It
indicates the element to which the focus is navigated to in
response to directional navigation input respective to the
specific property.
<fantasai> If it was thought of as a url, it probably would have used
url()
<fantasai> with some limitations in prose.
glazou: So.
tantek: It's similar to fragment ID in URL?
tantek: It's explanatory, not normative text.
tantek: Is there a test to see which is used?
SimonSapin: Yes
tantek: If you did that test with Nav and checked in implementors.
florian: Opera implemented, not sure other one.
tantek: Sounds like you could construct test with name and nav in
Opera and see what happens.
<florian> Note that it is the old opera that supports that.
<florian> old opera = presto
glazou: We have 2 using fragments, and 1 selector
tantek: We're not sure.
tantek: If implementors treat it like a selector we're okay.
SimonSapin: It's a bit undefined.
tantek: I can define it like the implementors are using it.
glazou: So take back to LC and wait for reports on test.
glazou: Is that okay SimonSapin, Tantek
SimonSapin: Yes.
Tantek: Yes.
Task force meeting
------------------
Krit: We agreed to meet in Seattle at the same time as the SVG WG.
Krit: Should we meet together on Wed?
glazou: I think it would be useful.
glazou: Yes.
glazou: Not the whole day, but for a few hours.
* sgalineau Note: CSSWG currently booked for 1/27-1/29; FXTF would be
on 1/29. SVG would be 1/29-1/31.
glazou: Any other comments?
glazou: That was a light agenda and we exhausted it.
florian: I won't be at next F2F.
glazou: Me neither.
SteveZ: Any update on if we'll have a Sunday meeting?
glazou: I didn't hear back.
glazou: You saw forum; it's complex to contact hotel.
glazou: Not sure if we have a room, I haven't heard a single word.
SteveZ: We're getting to where we need to make airline reservations.
<rhauck> Registration is also open for TestTWF for TPAC attendees.
<rhauck> If you are planning on coming to TestTWF and haven't gotten
your TPAC registration code, please contact me.
ACTION: glazou ping Bert to see if have reservation
<trackbot> Created ACTION-585 - Ping Bert to see if have reservation
[on Daniel Glazman - due 2013-10-0.
glazou: Anything else?
glazou: Thanks everyone
[Meeting ended]
<glazou> krit1, I misunderstood your request today
<glazou> you asked for a new ED
<krit1> yes
<glazou> and that does indeed require WG approval
<glazou> I was mistaken, sorry for that
<krit1> so do we need to take it up next week again?
<glazou> so let me correct things by email and ask if there is any
objection
<krit1> ok
<glazou> if there is no objection, we'll consider resolved
<glazou> ok for you?
<krit1> glazou: yes, that is fine for me
<glazou> thanks krit1 and sorry for the mishmash
<glazou> and thanks sgalineau for the heads up
DECISION TAKEN TO EMAIL ON W3C-CSS-WG MAILING-LIST after
misunderstanding and invalid decision during call given the request.
Correction made by co-chair Daniel after end of the call.
Received on Thursday, 3 October 2013 11:22:03 UTC