- From: Dael Jackson <daelcss@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 20:09:32 -0500
- To: www-style@w3.org
CSS3 UI
-------
- This discussion focused on two different items: the previous
decision of the working group to add Florian as a co-editor to
CSS3 UI and how CSS3 UI should progress forward.
- In regards to co-editorship, it was decided that Florian should
function as co-editor for CSS UI Level 4 instead of for level 3.
- Progress on CSS3 UI will hopefully move forward more quickly now
that tantek has time to focus on it and more unstable items
will be moved back to level 4.
- The work Florian already has done to take previous commits into
bikeshed will still be handled by the two of them and they
will work together to get the edits Florian found into CSS3 UI.
- RESOLVED: Add Florian as a CSS UI level 4 editor, not to level 3
and they will work together on publishing the pieces that
Florian already prepared for level 3
Exclusions and Position
-----------------------
- RESOLVED: New WD for Exclusions and Position
pseudo-elements
---------------
- The FPWD of pseudo-elements will happen after language is added
for ::grammar-error and ::spelling-error, including
information pertaining to the security concerns.
Restructuring CSS Generated Content
-----------------------------------
- There was a lot of support for the general path dauwhe is taking
on Generated Content and it was agreed that as issues come up
they'll be discussed further on the list.
- RESOLVED: Proceed as outlined by dauwhe for Generated Content
and continue conversing on the ML
Host for 'content' property
---------------------------
- The 'content' property should stay where it is.
:hover pseudo
-------------
- The language was wrong and will be changed
Where does ::selection inherit from?
------------------------------------
- fantasai asked for responses on the mailing list about where
::selection should inherit from. The thread is available
here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Nov/0188.html
===== FULL MINUTES BELOW ======
Present:
David Baron
Bert Bos
Bo Campbell
Tantek Çelik
Dave Cramer
Alex Critchfield
Elika Etemad
Simon Fraser
Sylvain Galineau
Daniel Glazman
Dael Jackson
Chris Lilley
Peter Linss
Shinyu Murakami
Keshav Puttaswamy
Florian Rivoal
Simon Sapin
Dirk Schulze
Alan Stearns
Lea Verou
Greg Whitworth
Steve Zilles
Regrets:
Rossen Atanassov
Mike Miller
Simon Pieters
Anton Prowse
Scribe: dael
glazou: Let's start.
glazou: Florian, I got your request late.
<Florian> http://www.w3.org/mid/8ADFE4C9-579D-4DF2-B6CD-53FF9C2D6ADB@rivoal.net
<Florian> http://www.w3.org/mid/FD5224A3-309C-4B65-BD71-D50D4F0314BC@rivoal.net
Florian: I got two points, they're linked above.
glazou: Anything else? Other extra items?
Bo_Campbell: I wanted to introduce an item if we have time.
glazou: I missed your e-mail announcing you joined the group. We
usually do the introductions on the ML.
Bo_Campbell: I did send an introduction, but I'll do that again.
CSS3 UI
-------
<smfr> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-ui/
<tantek> dael, see my email to www-style on this
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Nov/0199.html
tantak: I requested we talk about what changes first.
glazou: We want to revisit the discussion.
tantek: I wanted to do edits separately of editorship.
glazou: The context is in Sophia we decided that CSS3-UI was long
unattended. We don't have a good track record in general
of PRs and REC. We retired a few documents as notes and
gutted notes, the rest we wanted active editorship.
glazou: CSS3-UI was mentioned in Sophia with no complete decision.
It was 2 months before TPAC. So at TPAC we decided not to
remove your editorship, tantek. The WG only decided to add
another name, someone who is more available to do
editorial stuff to make progress. That's all I have to say
as the chair. I'll participate as a member.
tantek: That's the first I've heard about this. The first I heard
about the new heartbeat requirement was from plinss at
TPAC. My understanding is that the group is now, as you
said, making a priority of end of life-ing a document or
make it more actively published. Is that correct?
glazou: That plus there's new suggestions coming, for instance
from Bloomberg, and that was discussed in Sophia.
tantek: Was there resolution to add something? What was resolved
to CSSUI? The previous was to keep the working items in 3
and postpone the rest.
glazou: There were a few additions.
Florian: It was recognizing and accepting items to work on.
tantek: That makes sense to accept things to work on. There was a
drive to wrap up CSS3-UI as is and put anything squishy
and uncertain in 4. I'm fine with caret-color, but I
think, being that items, are beyond the scope of that
plan, I'd push against them being added to level 3.
glazou: I think it depends on implementations, so it's not in our
hands.
tantek: I agree on that.
<astearns> (some of the) CSS UI resolutions from Sophia:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Oct/0260.html
* astearns notes that we also resolved to add Tab as a co-editor
to CSS UI in Sophia:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Oct/0295.html
* sgalineau thinks the issue of how we make the spec progress is
orthogonal to whomever edits it
glazou: I would like to understand, you object to a new co-editor,
not a new editor.
glazou: This is the first time in the history of the WG, so I'd
like to understand why.
tantek: I objected to the order of discussions. I'd object to this
about any document. My understanding of the way the WG has
worked is there is an order of operations where if the WG
decides we need a new draft or changes, the WG can decide
even without the editor there and give a certain date for
completion. My understanding this has been at least 2
weeks
tantek: I object to skipping completely and changing editors.
glazou: It happened with howcome.
fantasai: Your understanding of how the WG has worked is wrong.
I've been here for 10 years and we've added co-editors
to docs and there's never been a requirement or
consideration of competence for the old editors. What we
have considered is if the person is willing and
interested. If there was a case of incompetence your
process makes sense. We have had people leave and
disappear.
tantek: We have a different memory than.
fantasai: I can read off minutes.
* sgalineau is not sure the way the WG has done things in the past
is an interesting or relevant topic
<SimonSapin> I don’t think we asked Melinda Grant or Håkon before
adding me as co-editor to css-page
tantek: This WG has had a healthier interaction than you describe.
I don't want to see that go forward. We're talking about a
way forward. I also object to brining in incompetence to
the conversation.
<fantasai> tantek: I don't understand why you think this is
unhealthy. Person volunteers to help me edit my spec. I
don't have a problem with it. WG agrees to add the
editor. Done.
<tantek> fantasai - rudeness is unhealthy.
<tantek> I don't understand why you're defending that.
<fantasai> tantek: What is rude about the process I just
described? Nothing.
<fantasai> tantek: What's rude is maybe that you were not present
at the last discussion about editorship of css3-ui
<fantasai> tantek: Yes, I agree that's rude
<fantasai> tantek: We should not do that.
<fantasai> tantek: but that's a different issue as to whether we
need to prove that you cannot handle editing the spec
before we consider volunteers to co-edit
<sgalineau> fantasai: I think it's rude if there is no follow up
and the editor finds out weeks later by accident.
<fantasai> sgalineau: I'm not contesting that.
<fantasai> sgalineau: Is it rude if the editor was present in the
original discussion?
<sgalineau> fantasai: just saying it's not necessarily rude to
make those calls without the editor.
<sgalineau> fantasai: I think we're off in the weeds and spending
way too much time discussing everything except what
the WG wants to do with the spec
Florian: I think the example of howcome wasn't interesting here. I
think another would be when I was editing MQ and I was
doing it moderately actively. TabAtkins had an interest
in working on it, he was added, did edits, and there was
no consideration to not responding. TabAtkins worked as a
co-editor and responded to requests from the WG and made
edits. I think that was useful.
Florian: At the moment I have time and interest for the spec and
adding my time I hope would help it move forward. This
isn't about you responding to the group. To drive things
forward isn't just about responding, it's about
considering what has been added in other places and
pushing the group. We're not retiring you because you're
not responsive.
tantek: Florian I'm not blaming you. I appreciate you have time
and interest to work on CSS UI. As I've communicated
privately, I think the more interesting work is level 4
and that's an area that I explicitly recommend needs more
work and could use the help of a co-editor in more ways
that CSS3 UI
tantek: So let's do that for 4. For 3 let's trim things in a way I
think I can be more effective at as a single editor. I
don't want to squash enthusiasm and want to see you help
work on level 4 where there's renewed interest. That's how
I'd like to move forward with you, Florian if that's okay.
I'd rather collaborative decisions instead of overriding
opinions.
glazou: You're proposing a co-editor rule.
tantek: I'm proposing for level 4.
glazou: It has two levels to work on.
<astearns> I think it's a fine compromise to add Florian as a co-
editor to level 4 and have Tantek move level 3 forward
glazou: To go back to fantasai point we have plenty of examples
about adding editors. The last document you edited in this
group was fullscreen. Okay, you attended a few calls, but
rarely the full thing. You're far less involved than you
used to be.
tantek: I think you're changing the topic and it's not relevant.
glazou: I think it is.
tantek: If Florian and I can work out how we think CSS UI should
work, I think we should be able to do that.
glazou: The WG should decide.
tantek: I don't think they should micromanage.
glazou: The group decides. We're lax, but everything we do is
decided by the WG. All our rules are decided by the WG.
You know that.
tantek: Rarely does the WG decide against what an editor is trying
to do. I understand we're run by consensus, but we try and
work with the desires of those working.
glazou: We had consensus and we're still discussing it.
tantek: No one is arguing about able, but I think there's a better
way forward.
glazou: We heard you, I'd like to hear from other WG members.
Florian: With the level 4 proposal, I'm happy to do that. In level
3 there's one or two things that concern me a bit. To be
able to work on 4, it's not productive if 3 isn't
somewhere between PR and REC.
Florian: I currently intend to go line by line to see if there are
things that need to be addressed, go through the wiki,
bring things to the ML. I can forward all the resolutions
and proposals to you, but having you as a gatekeeper
sounds like unnecessary overheard.
tantek: I'm not talking about delays, I'm making this a priority
and I'm committing to working actively to dealing with the
issues regarding CSS3 UI. I think we can work together to
conquer the items and divide them between 3 and 4. I don't
think this is gate-keeping, I'd like to try the way I
proposed for a couple weeks to see how it goes. If you
want to start 4 from the current state of 3 that's
reasonable, but I'm more of the opinion I'd like the
changes...
tantek: to 3 to be more conservative. Even if they're editorial, I
think it slows things down. I think the two levels should
be handled differently. I'd like you to take charge of the
much more free to make changes part where the gate-keeping
is getting 3 more quickly to CR.
<TabAtkins> FWIW, I'm still of the opinion that we should only
have one active level of a module at a time, with
"higher" modules being maintained as deltas except
when published. Don't think we have a single instance
of co-active module levels that were *actually*
properly maintained, with fixes propagating both ways.
glazou: It seems that you're the author, owner, and decider, not
the editor. The WG is the owner and they will decide how
to handle it.
tantek: I think I'm looking for collaboration. I'd like to see
Florian and I make progress.
<bkardell> "Try it for a few weeks" seems relatively harmless...
Why not give it a shot with review in 2 or 3 weeks
<glazou> bkardell: yes
Florian: I'd like to clarify when I said line by line, I don't
mean to change things everywhere, I mean to refine things
that are insufficiently explained or see when things have
been more accurately described in another place.
Florian: For example, the introduction is a bit out of date. For
the actual text, I don't plan on making major changes and
agree with you about it being conservative. If you have
time to actively work great, but I'm concerned that I
have spec changes I want to put in and sending you
patches isn't as straight forward as doing it.
tantek: Yes, I have time to work on this and am making this a
priority and I recognize that I haven't in the past. So
I'd like to work on moving this forward together.
glazou: I'd like to hear from others.
<tantek> I think astearns had an opinion
andreyr: I think that Florian should be a co-editor as we voted. I
don't see a problem with that.
glazou: Other opinions?
astearns: I can live with tantek's plan, but I agree with Florian
it's unnecessarily bureaucratic so I'd prefer Florian as
a co-editor.
fantasai: I don't see a problem with Florian being the co-editor.
I think since he has patches it seems silly to have him
put it through the mailing list. I think they should be
able to work together.
tantek: That's not what's being proposed. I'm proposing something
much more interactive. A two week wait is ridiculous.
SteveZ: It seemed to me that tantek and Florian were working out a
relationship and it seems to me that the group doesn't
need to micromanage. I'm coming down that Florian should
be an editor and we leave it to them to work out how they
divide the work on 3 and 4. I know that's not exactly what
tantek is asking, but I think that they can work it out.
Florian: I do think it would be simpler if I'm a coeditor. I don't
object to having tantek be the one doing it and me
forwarding requests, but it seems unnecessary. If that's
the only way forward, it's better than none, but it's
process heavy.
tantek: I don't want to be process heavy. I think dividing the
work between 3 and 4 would be more efficient. I don't want
to be a gatekeeper, I'll keep an eye on what you do to 4
and I'll be very conservative on 3 and we can interact on
IRC or e-mail or whatever. This isn't about process, this
is about being efficient.
fantasai: TabAtkins said earlier that 2 specs that are duplicating
the same content doesn't work well. When there's two
levels we have the second be a delta until the one above
stabilizes. Florian doing level 4 means he won't be able
to work on much.
tantek: I don't think so. 3 is pretty stable.
glazou: What if the WG decides in 2 weeks to add something the
CSS3 UI. You said you want conservative. We can change our
mind and decide to add something, will you let it be.
tantek: Yes, if the WG decides to change we'll do it, but I think
CSS3 UI is a release branch and active work will go into 4.
Back-porting bug fixes will need to be work on CSS3 UI.
That's part of the natural course of working on specs.
<dbaron> I don't think that addresses how the work will happen to
define the features in level 3 more carefully and
precisely.
glazou: So we need to move on. tantek, Florian what's the plan?
You guys start working together and reach a gentlemen's
agreement on how to proceed?
Florian: I would like to point out that I'd agree more with tantek
if the spec was in late CR.
tantek: The reason it's not is it already has bounced a lot and I
spent time working on the new process. I understand that
the WG is now on the new process.
Florian: We move them at the first opportunity.
tantek: Okay. That's why I wanted to focus on the new process, but
I did that too long. I'm sorry. I'm back.
glazou: dbaron is on the queue.
dbaron: We should wrap up.
Florian: This is more controversial than I thought. I prepared
commits to bikeshed the spec. I'd like to push that
through and then we work as you described onward.
tantek: I'm okay with that.
<tantek> thank you Florian
<tantek> and thank you glazou for permitting an agreement between
Florian and myself
glazou: Okay, we have an agreement.
fantasai: Do we have a resolution on the editorship of CSS3 UI?
<tantek> let Florian talk
<tantek> please fantasai
fantasai: Is Florian added?
glazou: Not as an editor. They will discuss how they will work
together.
<tantek> Florian go ahead
Florian: We have discussed.
Florian: I am added as a level 4 editor, not to level 3. tantek
will work on that and I'll forward what's needed to him.
I'll publish what I've already prepared for 3.
Florian: tantek, is that a correct desc?
tantek: I agree and further commit to reducing any overhead in
moving forward.
RESOLVED: Add Florian as a CSS UI level 4 editor, not to level 3
and they will work together on publishing the pieces
that Florian already prepared for level 3
glazou: tantek, does that resolution work for you?
tantek: And you wanted to record the changes to level 3? Oh, yes,
okay.
Exclusions and Position
-----------------------
gregwhitworth: That item was from rossen and he converted them to
bikeshed and made editorial changes. That's what I
know. If you have comments, let me know, but he
wanted to get it on the agenda.
gregwhitworth: That's it.
glazou: Comments?
<andreyr> I am in favor
astearns: I'm in favor
<Florian> +1
glazou: Me too.
glazou: Objections?
<dbaron> what's in this new draft?
RESOLVED: New WD for Exclusions and Position
<dbaron> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2014OctDec/0104.html
says that the edits to css-position are migration to
bikeshed and editorial fixes (typos and broken links)
<dbaron> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2014OctDec/0090.html
says that the edits to css-exclusions are migration to
bikeshed and editorial fixes (mostly typos and broken
links)
pseudo-elements
---------------
<fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Nov/0188.html
fantasai: There's some issues. Adding ::grammar-error and
::spelling-error was discussed, but there was no
resolution.
dbaron: Do we want these specifically, or something more generic?
<dbaron> ... for named selections
fantasai: I think we discussed that there would be more generic,
but these two would need to be hard coded. We could
share syntax with functional notation, but it makes
sense to put these by themselves, like ::selection. I'm
open to other ideas.
Florian: What is the current question being asked?
<tantek> I'm confused too
glazou: A FPWD for psuedo-elements.
<fantasai> Question is: Do we add ::grammar-error and
::spelling-error
<andreyr> I vote yes.
fantasai: Right now about ::grammar-error and ::spelling-error
Florian: My answer to that is yes if it includes security.
glazou: Do we need it for FPWD?
Florian: It's better to have it if we know it's wanted.
gregwhitworth: What if it was more generic? A way to just control
the color of the squiggle, no matter how it's used.
I can think of other ways to use it.
fantasai: You can style squiggle with text decoration.
<tantek> who is editing [css-pseudo] ?
* fantasai is
<Florian> tantek: editors are fantasai, glazou, astearns.
Theoretically TabAtkins as well, but he's not acted on
it.
<tantek> Florian thanks.
<glazou> tantek: original authors are astearns and myself
Florian: So, I would say it should be in FPWD since we roughly
know how to spec it and it's good to have it there.
<Bert> I agree with Florian: a note about security would be good
in the FPWD.
<tantek> I also agree with Florian re: a note about security would
be good in the FPWD
andreyr: I concur.
glazou: So it seems we won't publish FPWD right now.
fantasai: Yeah.
glazou: So no FPWD until we add the security thing for
::spelling-error and ::grammar-error
Restructuring CSS Generated Content
-----------------------------------
<glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Nov/0126.html
dauwhe: It has a WD from 2003. We resolved in Sophia to move some
of GCPM here and resurrect it and I want general
permission to apply the last 11 years of history to this
draft. For example, counters and numbering have their own
spec.
dauwhe: I had contacted the old editors and they're willing to
become former editors. I'm bikeshedding and getting it
closer to current, so I want to make sure there's no
objections to this large scale tearing up of the spec.
<ChrisL> +1
<SimonSapin> +1
Florian: No objections. I think it's a great thing.
<tantek> +1 and appreciate that dauwhe explicitly contacted former
editors
<tantek> thank you dauwhe for that
<fantasai> dauwhe++
dauwhe: Since this has the content property itself we'll need to
deal with related issues here eventually.
glazou: So objections to the proposed plan?
glazou: I think it makes a lot of sense.
Florian: Do we need to go through the A-H list on the e-mail?
dauwhe: I think they're mostly fine. A lot of these are obvious.
If small scale issues appear we can discuss on calls or
list as needed.
glazou: I think E & F need resolutions.
dauwhe: I'm not ready for substantive conversations on those. I
wanted them in for the awareness.
<tantek> dauwhe: btw re: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-content/#content
specifically 'icon' value - no one has implemented it
<tantek> dauwhe: I had initially proposed that ('icon' value, and
icon property), and it was in CSS3-UI, but am dropping
from there, and am ok with you keeping it in css-content
if you wish, but also ok with you dropping it. Up to you.
glazou: So obj to the global plan?
fantasai: I think it's great.
<Bert> (I like Dave's plan)
<andreyr> no objection
Florian: I object to NOT doing it.
ChrisL: Given that this is so old, it should be a FPWD as far as
patent policy.
RESOLVED: Proceed as outlined by dauwhe for Generated Content and
continue conversing on the ML
Host for 'content' property
---------------------------
astearns: It sounds like I was wrong and we plan on having it
apply outside pseudo-elements, so it shouldn't move.
Florian: We mean to attempt it.
dauwhe: I hope it succeeds. I'm so used to it for formatters.
astearns: So the argument that what I put in the pseudo draft and
should it go in content as well.
dauwhe: Yes.
dbaron: One of the big issues is how it effects resource loading
and performance of getting them started quickly because
one of the things authors are concerned about is getting
the important things moving along the network quickly. If
you have to load all the CSS before you retrieve images,
it's a big obstacle.
tantek: +1 to dbaron and the consequence is that authors either
won't use the method or they'll use an alternative no
matter how hacky. If you want this to work it must give
them the sort of control dbaron is talking about.
astearns: And I think there would be a big content-style
separation argument.
dbaron: Many of the use cases were for having CSS describe a
markup language, not actual things authors would use.
We're less interested in CSS being a complete description
of how HTML works and part of that is the complexity of
resource loading.
glazou: Should we continue this or move on to something else for
four minutes?
dauwhe: I'm not sure we should have the last five minutes on
something big.
Florian: One of mine is short.
:hover pseudo
-------------
<Florian> http://www.w3.org/mid/FD5224A3-309C-4B65-BD71-D50D4F0314BC@rivoal.net
<tantek> +1 agreed with Florian's proposal
Florian: There's a non-normative statement that we should fix.
Regarding the :hover pseudo when the label is hovered the
control is also in the hover for HTML
fantasai: Yeah, we need to change that.
glazou: So there's an issue and it will be fixed.
Where does ::selection inherit from?
------------------------------------
<fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Nov/0188.html
fantasai: I've got a topic for ::selection.
fantasai: I ran some tests on where ::selection inherits from.
1 is from parent ::selection, 2 are from originating
element, and 1 where it's different for BG and color.
fantasai: I wanted to ask implementors which behavior they prefer
so we can spec it.
<dbaron> I can't even load this issue into my head in 2 minutes.
fantasai: We don't have to answer now, but I'd like an answer at
some point.
glazou: We should do that on the ML.
fantasai: The discussion is here (above). I'm not expecting an
answer now.
glazou: Thank you. Anything else in the last minute?
glazou: Okay. Sorry the first issue took so long. Thank you and
talk to you next week.
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2014 01:10:00 UTC