16:10:55 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #css
16:10:55 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/07/30-css-irc
16:11:04 <plinss> rrsagent, make logs public
16:11:19 <SteveZ> Scribe: SteveZ
16:11:39 <melinda> Meeting: CSS WG Teleconf
16:11:49 <Zakim> +dsinger
16:12:28 <plinss> http://csswg.inkedblade.net/spec/css2.1#issue-51
16:12:50 <SteveZ> Issue 51 - Core grammar for @rules conflicts with CSS3 features 
16:13:15 <SteveZ> issue is how to skip invalid @rules
16:13:17 <glazou> Zakim, who is noisy
16:13:17 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is noisy', glazou
16:13:21 <plinss> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Jul/0105.html
16:13:23 <glazou> Zakim, who is noisy?
16:13:34 <Zakim> glazou, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: glazou (9%), Bert (18%)
16:13:49 <glazou> Bert, do the clicks I hear come from your phone ?
16:14:04 <Bert> I hear some soft clicks, yes.
16:14:13 <Bert> Should I redial?
16:14:34 <Zakim> -Bert
16:14:36 <SteveZ> DG: is there an issue with the object model
16:14:49 <plinss> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Jun/0297.html
16:14:49 <Zakim> +Bert
16:15:10 <SteveZ> PL: I do not believe there is an affect on the object model
16:16:18 <SteveZ> PL: some browers will see an embedded @rule as an invalid selector and will gobble up to a semicolon
16:16:50 <SteveZ> PL: others will look for matching braces following the embedded rule and will find the next @rule
16:17:10 <plinss> s/@rule/style rule
16:18:11 <SteveZ> PL: the core proposal is always parsed as an @rule no matter where you find it.
16:19:09 <glazou> Bert, yeah that's your phone, we can't hear you
16:19:27 <Bert> [ ruleset | media | page ]
16:20:29 <SteveZ> BB: Instead putting "Stylesheet" as Elika suggests, we list the three cases that are allowed
16:20:43 <fantasai> I do not suggest that anymore
16:20:55 <fantasai> bjoern pointed out problems with it
16:21:10 <fantasai> Currently I only suggest changing the prose as described in the proposal I sent last night
16:22:34 <SteveZ> PL: What you propose would not work for user defined @rules (which would be seen as invalid selectors)
16:23:17 <plinss> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/grammar.html
16:24:05 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #css
16:24:39 <SteveZ> PL: two issues 1) paged media will allow embedded @rules and 2) how to handle unknown or invalid @rules
16:27:29 <Zakim> +??P13
16:27:42 <fantasai> zakim, ? is fantasai
16:27:42 <Zakim> +fantasai; got it
16:27:50 <fantasai> zakim, mute me
16:27:50 <Zakim> fantasai should now be muted
16:28:11 <SteveZ> PL: I am unconvinced that Elikas proposal of last night really solves the problem; it does address the problem of embedded @rules but there is nothing to address how to parse an illegal @rule
16:29:11 <SteveZ> DG: authors will understand if we throw away a well-formed @rule, but will not understand throwing away content up to a semicolon
16:29:20 <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Jul/0581.html does handle illegal @rules, inside @media statements only however
16:30:09 <fantasai> zakim, unmute me
16:30:09 <Zakim> fantasai should no longer be muted
16:30:51 <SteveZ> SZ: if you find a @rule anywhere, if illegal, try to parse it as an @rule  and if it is a well formed @rule then discard the whole rule and only the rule
16:31:29 <SteveZ> EE: eventually, everywhere you have a style rule you should be able to put an @rule.
16:31:47 <fantasai> you should parse an @rule the same as outside that context
16:31:57 <glazou> fantasai agreed
16:31:57 <SteveZ> DG: if you encounter an invalid rule, then you should not throw away the next rule.
16:32:21 <SteveZ> PL: the difficulty is detecting what the next rule is
16:33:02 <fantasai> EE: I don't think we should change parsing rules for declaration blocks.
16:33:06 <SteveZ> EE: we should limit this change to @media in 2.1 because it is the only place where stylerules are embedded in some other block.
16:33:07 <glazou> bert we can't hear you at all
16:33:08 <Zakim> -Bert
16:33:20 <fantasai> EE: I think we should leave those as-is: we don't know how we want to extend that syntax in the future
16:33:25 <dsinger> can someone who is typing fast move the keyboard away fropm the mike (por mute)?
16:33:30 <glazou> LOL
16:33:34 <Bert> The q is if we want to allow @page in @media in 2.1, (because it isn't actually forbidden anywhere...)
16:33:45 <dsinger> plz
16:33:45 <fantasai> zakim, mute me
16:33:47 <Zakim> fantasai should now be muted
16:33:53 <dsinger> aahhhh
16:34:00 <Zakim> +Bert
16:34:26 <fantasai> EE: but we should fix @media; I think that's the only place in CSS2.1 where we have style rules inside a block
16:34:31 <fantasai> zakim, unmute me
16:34:31 <Zakim> fantasai should no longer be muted
16:36:29 <SteveZ> EE: The handling of @rule throw away is different in stylerules and declaration blocks; in the later adding the @rule throwaway is big issue
16:37:10 <SteveZ> EE: we could allow @rules in declarations if we require a semicolon after them
16:37:20 <fantasai> EE: or place them after all declarations
16:38:15 <SteveZ> EE: there are no situations in 2.1 where the above is required; the need in in CSS3
16:38:49 <Bert> This is a pain :-(
16:38:53 <SteveZ> PL: This leaves us we weird restrictions on where @rules can go or must be placed; I am not happy about that
16:38:54 <glazou> :)
16:39:09 <Bert> Everywhere where you have decalration, you *only * have decls.
16:39:19 <Bert> @rules were supposed to be mixed with rulesets, not decls.
16:39:37 <glazou> that's for now, but in the future ?
16:40:23 <Bert> The grammar doesn't recognize an at-rule inside a declaration, it will be a bunch of tokens which happens to start with an ATKEUWORD.
16:40:31 <SteveZ> EE and BB: at issue is making a change to the core grammer
16:40:57 <Bert> Margin boxes inside @page were a mistake. How did that happen? :-(
16:41:23 <SteveZ> MG: We know that @margin box rules in CSS3 will require this change
16:41:50 <melinda> s/will require this change/will be affected by a change here.
16:43:21 <Bert> We do have options, Paged Media is not a REC yet...
16:43:27 <molly> molly has joined #css
16:44:16 <glazou> hi molly!
16:44:46 <SteveZ> PL: altho adding the @rule handling to declarations would be a big change to the grammer, but it would ot be a big change to most implementations
16:44:54 <molly> hi glazou. Apologies for lateness, also no phone today 
16:45:34 <fantasai> EE: If you want to push for that change, then I insist that dbaron be present for the discussion.
16:45:56 <SteveZ> PL: we have consensus on handling @rules between rulesets, but we need further discussion on the handling of @rules in declartion blocks
16:46:06 <Bert> Don't break future extensibility! The core grammar must remain stable.
16:46:58 <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Jul/0581.html
16:47:23 <SteveZ> EE: can we split this into two issues: one for @rules between rulesets (@media blocks) and the second for @rules in declarations
16:48:18 <SteveZ> PL: current grammer says that @rules are not allowed in rule sets so above proposal does address this problem
16:48:58 <fantasai> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/grammar.html
16:49:03 <SteveZ> EE: There are two grammers; the 2.1 grammer which is helpful not authorative and the authorative grammer
16:49:10 <fantasai> "The grammar below defines the syntax of CSS 2.1. It is in some sense, however, a superset of CSS 2.1 as this specification imposes additional semantic constraints not expressed in this grammar. A conforming UA must also adhere to the forward-compatible parsing rules, the selectors notation, the property and value notation, and the unit notation."
16:49:45 <fantasai> s/the authorative grammar/the core grammar/
16:51:44 <glazou> SCREAM !!!
16:52:02 <molly> this may seem a stupid question, but what is the advantage of being able to use @rules inside a declaration?
16:52:15 <molly> is there a use case somewhere Elika that I can look at?
16:52:47 <SteveZ> BB: is the minimal fix for this issue and it also says that @page is not allowed in @media
16:52:47 <sylvaing> +1 for molly's question
16:52:52 <fantasai> molly: we're discussing forwards-compatible parsing
16:53:11 <fantasai> molly: plinss is arguing that we might want to allow it in the future, and so it should be parsed in a way compatible with that possibility
16:53:24 <dsinger> wow
16:53:30 <SaloniR> :)
16:53:31 <glazou> fantasai: mute pls
16:53:32 <fantasai> molly: bert and I are arguing that it's a big change to 2.1 and affects the core grammar, and therefore we should not change that
16:53:34 <molly> I'm just trying to imagine a case where that would even be necessary
16:53:57 <sylvaing> * is just amazed by the sound of fantasai's fierce typing
16:53:58 <Bert> Molly, agree 100%, but problem is that Paged Media somehow started putting @rules in front of declarations :-(
16:54:34 <molly> I understand the argument heh, I don't really understand the need
16:55:03 <fantasai> "Note: Future levels of CSS may allow at-rules in @media."
16:55:51 <Bert> I argued in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Jul/0070.html to allow @page in @media already in CSS 2.1, so that there is less diff. between 2 and 3...
16:56:41 <SteveZ> SZ: the note should say that forward-compatible parsing of @rules inside at media is required to allow the relaxation of the restriction on @rules in @media; for example to allow @page in @media
16:56:56 <molly> thanks Bert, I see it now.
16:57:08 <SteveZ> s/relaxation/the future relaxation/
16:58:00 <SteveZ> MG: I want to make sure that people do not test to make sure that @page does not occur in @media
16:58:52 <Zakim> -fantasai
16:59:20 <Bert> I think Melinda is saying that a UA must now choose to be CSS 2.1 or CSS3, but cannot be both, because one *must ignore* what the other *must accept*.
17:00:44 <SteveZ> SZ: the problem that Melinda raises is common to forward compatible usage: something that was undefined in some context to day may be defined in the future
17:01:51 <Bert> Ignoring because you don't know what it measn (@foo) is diff. from ignoring because the spec says you must (@page)
17:02:37 <sylvaing> should the spec say you must ignore @page or define a way for CSS2.1 UAs to gracefully ignore future @xyz ?
17:03:43 <glazou> bye people
17:03:50 <molly> bye daniel!
17:03:54 <Zakim> -glazou
17:04:07 <SteveZ> PL and DG: allowing @page (to be processed) would make a change to the object model
17:04:49 <SteveZ> All: that seems to be too big a change to 2.1
17:06:02 <molly> That seems dangerous to do in general, since I bet implementation will be prioritized as low by most implementers 
17:06:32 <molly> just to allow for at-rule parsing within a declaration, that is
17:07:37 <Bert> Revised revised proposal (based on fantasai's): State in 7.2.1 that "@page rules inside @media are invalid in CSS2.1. Invalid at-rules inside @media blocks must be ignored per 4.2 Rules for handling parsing errors."
17:07:44 <molly> so the in-declaration at-rule starts its life as an at-risk feature :)
17:07:57 <SteveZ> REsolution: Accept Elika's proposal with Melinda's note to not test to make sure that @page does not occur
17:08:56 <SaloniR> That would mean allowing embedded @media rules in CSS 2.1
17:09:43 <Zakim> -Melinda_Grant
17:09:44 <dsinger> bye
17:09:45 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
17:09:46 <Zakim> -plinss
17:09:47 <Zakim> -sylvaing
17:09:47 <Zakim> -George
17:09:50 <Zakim> -dsinger
17:10:02 <Bert> Yes, maybe we want nested @media, too :-)
17:10:06 <SteveZ> Above proposed resolution was withdrawn for lack of a consensus
17:10:16 <Bert> Although I would be against that, but on other grounds (usability)
17:10:25 <Zakim> -Bert
17:10:27 <Zakim> -SteveZ
17:10:28 <Zakim> Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
17:10:29 <Zakim> Attendees were glazou, plinss, SteveZ, arronei, George, Bert, Melinda_Grant, [Microsoft], +1.206.324.aaaa, sylvaing, dsinger, fantasai
17:10:32 <molly> I thought it was a good consensus for 2.1
17:10:35 <molly> er, good plan
17:10:41 <SteveZ> zakim, make minutes
17:10:41 <Zakim> I don't understand 'make minutes', SteveZ
17:10:59 <SteveZ> rrsagent, make minutes
17:10:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/30-css-minutes.html SteveZ
17:34:58 <Bert> Funny, I was looking when and why we said that @page inside @media was not allowed. Haven't found it yet, but found a message from Peter, then still of Netscape, suggesting that the grammar appendix is wrong and @page *should* be allowed. Reply from Glazou, then still of EDF, warning that Paged Media uses nested @rules...
17:35:10 <Bert> Are we replaying 1999?
17:40:49 <George> George has left #css
18:28:30 <Hixie> Hixie has joined #css
18:45:18 <Hixie> Hixie has joined #css
19:36:42 <Zakim> Zakim has left #css
19:54:42 <fantasai> Arrgggh! How can we have spent an *entire hour* discussing this minor parsing issue and not gotten a resolution!?
20:19:29 <Bert> One reason is that we somehow mixed the pb of margin boxes inside @page with @page inside @media. Only the latter is an issue for CSS 2.1.
20:25:21 <fantasai> yes,the discussions veered very far off topic
20:25:25 <fantasai> well not very far
20:25:30 <fantasai> but far enough 
20:57:25 <fantasai> RRSAgent: make logs public
21:03:56 <arronei> arronei has joined #CSS
21:43:52 <Hixie> Hixie has joined #css
22:14:25 <fantasai> Bert: btw, will you be around the week before the F2F? I will be in London, I was thinking to spend the week getting the next Backgrounds and Borders draft completed
22:14:40 <fantasai> Bert: we will be in the same timezone, so it would be easy to discuss any remaining issues
22:14:54 <Bert> I will be in my office.
22:15:05 <fantasai> cool
22:15:14 <Bert> Not the same time zone, but almost
22:15:19 <fantasai> true
22:15:23 <fantasai> but close enough :)
22:15:28 <fantasai> esp compared to right now ;)
22:15:34 <Bert> Indeed
22:23:19 <fantasai> Bert: did you talk with OMA about removing vertical frmo Marquee?
22:23:25 <fantasai> you had an action item on that
22:23:51 <Bert> I sent e-mail, but got no response so far.
22:24:03 <Bert> Sent it to CDF as well.
22:24:50 <Bert> Only response I got was from SYMM, but with a remark on another point.
22:25:10 <Bert> Viz., that SMIL3 also has something marquee-like.
22:47:25 <Hixie> Hixie has joined #css