IRC log of css on 2008-07-23
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:56:46 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #css
- 15:56:46 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/07/23-css-irc
- 15:56:54 [plinss]
- zakim, this is style
- 15:56:54 [Zakim]
- ok, plinss; that matches Style_CSS FP()12:00PM
- 15:58:03 [Zakim]
- +[Microsoft]
- 15:59:06 [plinss]
- zakim, [microsoft] has arronei
- 15:59:06 [Zakim]
- +arronei; got it
- 16:00:08 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 16:00:23 [George]
- Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
- 16:00:24 [Zakim]
- +George; got it
- 16:00:58 [Zakim]
- +fantasai
- 16:02:31 [Zakim]
- +Melinda_Grant
- 16:02:57 [fantasai]
- ScribeNick: fantasai
- 16:03:36 [fantasai]
- I'm likely to leave early, so someone else will need to take over minutes
- 16:03:40 [melinda]
- melinda has joined #CSS
- 16:04:48 [Zakim]
- +[Microsoft.a]
- 16:05:22 [Zakim]
- +SteveZ
- 16:06:14 [Zakim]
- +Bert
- 16:06:20 [sylvaing]
- sylvaing has joined #css
- 16:06:29 [SaloniR]
- SaloniR has joined #css
- 16:07:22 [SteveZ]
- SteveZ has joined #css
- 16:09:17 [fantasai]
- Peter: Anything to add to agenda?
- 16:09:52 [fantasai]
- Melinda: Hoping for a brief discussion about where the definition of what's required for support for 'style' attribute
- 16:11:07 [fantasai]
- fantasai: We could rip out all new functionality in the style attr draft and publish that: that's what Tantek suggested. It's not defined anywhere in 2.1
- 16:11:18 [fantasai]
- Topic: Agenda for F2F
- 16:11:40 [fantasai]
- Peter: We don't have enough topics to fill a 3-day meeting yet
- 16:11:42 [dbaron]
- dbaron has joined #css
- 16:11:54 [Zakim]
- +[Mozilla]
- 16:12:01 [Zakim]
- -[Mozilla]
- 16:12:11 [fantasai]
- Peter: I was thinking we should put up a page on the wiki and have people fill in
- 16:12:25 [Zakim]
- +[Mozilla]
- 16:12:25 [fantasai]
- Peter: I'd like to keep the F2F primarily technical, focus on things that benefit from us all being in the same room
- 16:12:33 [fantasai]
- Peter: We will filter and sort as time goes on
- 16:12:44 [dbaron]
- Zakim, [Mozilla] has David_Baron
- 16:12:44 [Zakim]
- +David_Baron; got it
- 16:12:54 [fantasai]
- Topic: Marquee
- 16:13:01 [fantasai]
- fantasai: Still waiting for Bert to reply
- 16:13:05 [sylvaing]
- Zakim, [Microsoft] has salonir, sylvaing
- 16:13:05 [Zakim]
- +salonir, sylvaing; got it
- 16:13:08 [fantasai]
- fantasai: last I spec
- 16:13:11 [jason_cranfordtea]
- jason_cranfordtea has joined #css
- 16:13:29 [Zakim]
- +jason_cranfordtea
- 16:13:51 [fantasai]
- s/spec/checked/
- 16:15:21 [fantasai]
- Bert: I was thinking we should just remove any mention of vertical text
- 16:16:35 [fantasai]
- Bert: We can't test it until Text Layout is done
- 16:16:52 [fantasai]
- fantasai: I'm pretty sure we can write the text so it works in the future, but testing would be a blocker for getting to REC
- 16:17:12 [fantasai]
- Melinda: Should we ask OMA? If they're doing vertical text, then they'll want these definitions
- 16:18:20 [fantasai]
- ACTION: Bert Ask OMA what mobile world thinks about removing vertical text descriptions from Marquee
- 16:18:20 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-81 - Ask OMA what mobile world thinks about removing vertical text descriptions from Marquee [on Bert Bos - due 2008-07-30].
- 16:18:45 [fantasai]
- Peter: If they say they need it, they better be prepared to provide an implementation of it
- 16:19:13 [fantasai]
- Bert: Someone said he has test reports for marquee, needs to work on them a bit more first but will send them to me
- 16:19:48 [fantasai]
- Peter: So are we agreed that unless Mobile needs vertical, we remove it from the draft?
- 16:20:22 [fantasai]
- Steve: I think that's a good idea. We should keep vertical in mind, though.
- 16:21:55 [fantasai]
- Peter: Yeah. We don't want to block ourselves in the future, but we don't want to be blocked by vertical
- 16:22:01 [fantasai]
- Bert: Good topic for F2F?
- 16:22:16 [fantasai]
- fantasai: yeah. We should take some time to define terminology that we can use and refer to from other specs
- 16:22:58 [fantasai]
- fantasai: That way the specs don't have to depend on how vertical text is done exactly, but we can make sure layout models in e.g. CSS3 Multi-col can add the few sentences necessary to say how vertical layout is analogous
- 16:23:06 [fantasai]
- Steve: Would be a good candidate for a W3C Note
- 16:24:46 [fantasai]
- Bert asks about "primary paragraph direction" and fantasai explains about bidi
- 16:25:09 [fantasai]
- Steve: One of the topics for discussion at the F2F is what set of things ought to be considered content for that note
- 16:25:18 [fantasai]
- Steve: Obviously some of the things we're talking about, but perhaps more than that.
- 16:25:33 [fantasai]
- Steve: I know that fantasai and Paul and I put together some terminology
- 16:25:44 [fantasai]
- Bert: Sounds like a req document for text module
- 16:25:56 [fantasai]
- Steve: A bit more than that. Background, or something
- 16:26:08 [fantasai]
- Steve: It's not just the text module, also applies to box moduel and others
- 16:26:12 [fantasai]
- s/moduel/module/
- 16:26:46 [fantasai]
- ACTION: fantasai add Note about vertical text terminology to F2F agenda
- 16:26:46 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-82 - Add Note about vertical text terminology to F2F agenda [on Elika Etemad - due 2008-07-30].
- 16:27:10 [fantasai]
- Topic: Case-sensitivity and lang attribute in XML
- 16:27:32 [fantasai]
- Peter: XML says that attribute values are case-sensitive
- 16:27:54 [fantasai]
- Peter: It also says that xml:lang takes lang codes, and lang codes are case-insensitive
- 16:28:00 [plinss]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Jul/att-0026/xmllang.xhtml
- 16:30:03 [dbaron]
- Even if xml:lang is defined to be case-insensitive, it's not necessarily case-insensitive at a level that CSS wants to know about.
- 16:31:30 [fantasai]
- fantasai argues that we need to decouple [lang|=] and :lang(), and that :lang() should be case-insensitive per CSS
- 16:32:01 [fantasai]
- and we should add a note saying whether xml:lang is case-sensitive or case-insensitive when matched against with Selectors
- 16:32:28 [fantasai]
- Peter: I agree with that. I think :lang() should be very simple to use, have a consistent way of matching against the languages
- 16:33:16 [fantasai]
- Peter: If a document language uses some other convention than RFC3066, then :lang(en) should still match English
- 16:34:11 [fantasai]
- Peter: The language may not be coming from an attribute. It might be coming from an element, or an HTTP header. We don't know and we shouldn't care
- 16:34:25 [fantasai]
- Melinda agrees with this proposal
- 16:35:11 [fantasai]
- Peter: Do we have consensus that this is how the pseudo-class should work?
- 16:39:26 [fantasai]
- Steve argues that CSS should define exactly which mechanisms can define language, Melinda and Peter and Elika argue that the definition should be generic and refer to the specs for the document language.
- 16:44:38 [fantasai]
- Peter: I think we have agreement on how we want the lang attribute to work
- 16:45:02 [fantasai]
- Peter: I think we have agreement to refer to other specs and explain how they work here
- 16:45:14 [fantasai]
- Peter: The only disagreement is whether those references should be normative or informative
- 16:51:15 [fantasai]
- ACTION: fantasai come up with wording for lang issue
- 16:51:15 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-83 - Come up with wording for lang issue [on Elika Etemad - due 2008-07-30].
- 16:51:27 [fantasai]
- Topic: CSS2.1 Issues
- 16:51:50 [plinss]
- http://csswg.inkedblade.net/spec/css2.1#issue-35
- 16:52:01 [fantasai]
- fantasai: need hyatt for that one
- 16:52:26 [plinss]
- http://csswg.inkedblade.net/spec/css2.1#issue-45
- 16:52:30 [fantasai]
- http://csswg.inkedblade.net/spec/css2.1#issue-45
- 16:54:06 [fantasai]
- fantasai: it's just a clarification, doesn't change anything
- 16:54:43 [fantasai]
- fantasai: Alex asked for it, because IE had a wrong interpretation of this case before
- 16:54:59 [fantasai]
- Alex explains
- 16:55:15 [fantasai]
- Alex: It's pretty hard to get a precise definition here, but we have good interoperability on this point
- 16:57:50 [sylvaing]
- Zakim, [Microsoft] has alexmog
- 16:57:50 [Zakim]
- +alexmog; got it
- 17:02:44 [fantasai]
- discussion of whether the antecedent of "this" in the proposed note is clear
- 17:04:02 [fantasai]
- Steve proposes s/this/this hypothetical calculation/
- 17:04:19 [fantasai]
- RESOLVED: proposal for issue 45 accepted
- 17:04:27 [Zakim]
- -[Mozilla]
- 17:04:28 [Zakim]
- -jason_cranfordtea
- 17:04:31 [Zakim]
- -fantasai
- 17:04:33 [Zakim]
- -Melinda_Grant
- 17:04:35 [Zakim]
- -George
- 17:04:37 [Zakim]
- -plinss
- 17:04:37 [George]
- George has left #css
- 17:04:45 [Zakim]
- -SteveZ
- 17:04:53 [Zakim]
- -Bert
- 17:04:57 [Zakim]
- -[Microsoft]
- 17:04:59 [Zakim]
- -[Microsoft.a]
- 17:05:01 [Zakim]
- Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
- 17:05:05 [Zakim]
- Attendees were plinss, arronei, George, fantasai, Melinda_Grant, [Microsoft], SteveZ, Bert, David_Baron, salonir, sylvaing, jason_cranfordtea, alexmog
- 17:06:32 [Hixie]
- Hixie has joined #css
- 18:06:06 [Hixie]
- Hixie has joined #css
- 18:21:02 [sylvaing]
- sylvaing has joined #css
- 18:33:27 [dbaron]
- dbaron has joined #css
- 18:40:56 [Hixie]
- Hixie has joined #css
- 19:15:31 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #css
- 19:36:21 [Hixie]
- Hixie has joined #css
- 20:02:31 [arronei]
- arronei has joined #CSS
- 20:18:34 [Hixie]
- Hixie has joined #css
- 21:44:34 [Hixie]
- Hixie has joined #css