IRC log of CSS on 2010-08-04
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:22:03 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #CSS
- 15:22:03 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/08/04-CSS-irc
- 15:22:11 [glazou]
- Zakim, this will be Style
- 15:22:11 [Zakim]
- ok, glazou; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 38 minutes
- 15:22:20 [glazou]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 15:22:34 [dbaron]
- dbaron has joined #css
- 15:30:00 [dydz]
- dydz has joined #css
- 15:53:18 [arronei]
- arronei has joined #CSS
- 15:54:33 [arronei]
- arronei has joined #CSS
- 15:55:48 [glazou]
- Zakim, code ?
- 15:55:48 [Zakim]
- the conference code is 78953 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), glazou
- 15:55:56 [Zakim]
- Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
- 15:56:03 [Zakim]
- +glazou
- 15:56:21 [Zakim]
- +dsinger
- 15:57:03 [dsinger_]
- dsinger_ has joined #css
- 15:57:13 [glazou]
- Zakim, mute dsinger
- 15:57:13 [Zakim]
- dsinger should now be muted
- 15:57:17 [dsinger_]
- zakim, mute dsinger
- 15:57:17 [Zakim]
- dsinger was already muted, dsinger_
- 15:57:37 [glazou]
- np, the noise was too loud
- 15:57:43 [dsinger_]
- zakim, who is here?
- 15:57:44 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see glazou, dsinger (muted)
- 15:57:44 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see dsinger_, arronei, dbaron, RRSAgent, Zakim, glazou, Curt`, bradk, nimbupani, miketaylr, shepazu, dsinger, TabAtkins_, karl, fantasai, krijnh, plinss_, lhnz, Bert,
- 15:57:49 [Zakim]
- ... Peter`, tabatkins, trackbot, plinss, Hixie, jgraham
- 15:57:51 [sylvaing]
- sylvaing has joined #css
- 15:57:58 [nimbupani]
- nimbupani has left #css
- 15:58:47 [Zakim]
- +[Microsoft]
- 15:58:52 [oyvind]
- oyvind has joined #css
- 16:00:17 [arronei]
- zakim, microsoft is me
- 16:00:17 [Zakim]
- +arronei; got it
- 16:00:34 [Zakim]
- +plinss_
- 16:01:47 [Zakim]
- +[Microsoft]
- 16:02:24 [Zakim]
- +Bert
- 16:02:51 [Zakim]
- +sylvaing
- 16:03:31 [Zakim]
- + +1.650.766.aaaa
- 16:03:47 [glazou]
- Zakim, aaaa is bradk
- 16:03:47 [Zakim]
- +bradk; got it
- 16:03:49 [Zakim]
- +smfr
- 16:04:00 [smfr]
- smfr has joined #css
- 16:04:09 [Zakim]
- +??P16
- 16:04:10 [Zakim]
- +SteveZ
- 16:04:41 [glazou]
- Zakim, P16 is fantasai
- 16:04:41 [Zakim]
- sorry, glazou, I do not recognize a party named 'P16'
- 16:04:49 [glazou]
- Zakim, ?P16 is fantasai
- 16:04:49 [Zakim]
- sorry, glazou, I do not recognize a party named '?P16'
- 16:05:01 [glazou]
- Zakim, you're annoying
- 16:05:01 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'you're annoying', glazou
- 16:06:01 [dsinger_]
- Zakim, p16 is fantasai
- 16:06:01 [Zakim]
- sorry, dsinger_, I do not recognize a party named 'p16'
- 16:06:20 [dsinger_]
- zakim, who is on the phone?
- 16:06:20 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see glazou, dsinger (muted), arronei, plinss_, [Microsoft], Bert, sylvaing, bradk, smfr, ??P16, SteveZ
- 16:06:48 [dsinger_]
- Zakim, ??p16 is fantasai
- 16:06:48 [Zakim]
- +fantasai; got it
- 16:06:48 [JohnJansen]
- JohnJansen has joined #css
- 16:06:51 [fantasai]
- Administrative: no more agenda items
- 16:06:57 [fantasai]
- Topic: CSS Test Suite
- 16:07:09 [glazou]
- Zakim, [Microsoft] has JohnJansen
- 16:07:09 [Zakim]
- +JohnJansen; got it
- 16:07:20 [fantasai]
- arronei: Lots of tests need updating in response to review comments. Plan to get these done before the F2F.
- 16:07:24 [fantasai]
- Topic: CSS2.1
- 16:07:25 [glazou]
- http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-120
- 16:07:49 [Zakim]
- +David_Baron
- 16:08:07 [fantasai]
- glazou: Asked everyone to review issue 120, and if no comments, it's accepted
- 16:08:26 [fantasai]
- glazou: Are there any comments?
- 16:08:27 [szilles]
- szilles has joined #css
- 16:08:45 [fantasai]
- Bert: I just sent my review of the text. I had three places where I didn't agree with the replacements.
- 16:09:16 [fantasai]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Aug/0050.html
- 16:11:34 [fantasai]
- Bert: block-level is not defined
- 16:12:05 [fantasai]
- Bert: second issue is the definition of atomic inline box
- 16:12:14 [fantasai]
- Bert: I'm wondering if it's necessary -- it's only used in one place
- 16:13:25 [fantasai]
- fantasai: That seems alright to me.
- 16:13:55 [fantasai]
- Steve: I'm fine with that as a resolution. However if we ever get around to Tab's split of the 'display' property or something similar, it would be a useful term to have.
- 16:14:06 [fantasai]
- Steve: The concept is a useful one for people to understand
- 16:15:18 [Zakim]
- +[Apple]
- 16:15:25 [dsinger]
- zakim, [apple] has dsinger
- 16:15:25 [Zakim]
- +dsinger; got it
- 16:15:43 [fantasai]
- fantasai agrees with Steve
- 16:15:45 [Zakim]
- -dsinger
- 16:16:08 [fantasai]
- Steve: If there's no harm in introducing it here, it could be useful in the future.
- 16:16:48 [fantasai]
- Bert: My third comment is wrt its use in the z-index property description, where I don't think we should use it.
- 16:17:00 [fantasai]
- Bert: So we would define the term but not use it anywhere in CSS2
- 16:17:14 [fantasai]
- Steve: That's fine, I think just the recognition that there is such a thing would be useful.
- 16:17:41 [fantasai]
- Bert: The other changes seem fine to me.
- 16:18:51 [fantasai]
- fantasai: There were some comments on the mailing list, mostly editorial, about improving the text there. I will need to incorporate those as well.
- 16:18:53 [glazou]
- http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-167
- 16:19:03 [fantasai]
- RESOLVED: Proposal for 120 accepted with changes mentioned above.
- 16:19:42 [fantasai]
- Bert's response to 167: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Aug/0052.html
- 16:19:49 [Zakim]
- + +1.650.214.aabb
- 16:19:55 [TabAtkins_]
- Zakim, aabb is me
- 16:19:55 [Zakim]
- +TabAtkins_; got it
- 16:19:59 [glazou]
- hi tabatkins
- 16:20:21 [fantasai]
- Bert: In some cases a backslash is not an escaping mechanism.
- 16:20:49 [fantasai]
- Bert: The way he defines that is to say it has "no special meaning", and then defines "no special meaning" inside a note, which is a non-normative part.
- 16:21:09 [fantasai]
- Bert: Otherwise I think his changes are fine, other than the non-normative part.
- 16:21:26 [fantasai]
- Bert: I would rather not define "no special meaning", but instead just say that the backslash stands for itself directly.
- 16:21:45 [fantasai]
- glazou: Other comments?
- 16:22:34 [fantasai]
- fantasai: I agree with Bert's changes, and I trust Bert to have made sure the proposal is correct
- 16:22:53 [glazou]
- http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-118
- 16:22:55 [fantasai]
- RESOLVED: Proposal accepted for issue 167 as corrected by Bert
- 16:23:32 [fantasai]
- Steve: Basically I went back and looked at OpenType standard, and then checked with some font guys at Adobe to make sure I understood it.
- 16:23:57 [fantasai]
- Steve: THe catch is, the em-box a) isn't really defined, other than to say that the coordinate system used in other values is given in units per em
- 16:24:09 [fantasai]
- Steve: and b) its position is not really defined
- 16:24:29 [fantasai]
- Steve: The ascent and descent values which dbaron mentioned are related to this
- 16:24:53 [fantasai]
- Steve: There are three sets of such values
- 16:24:59 [fantasai]
- Steve: One that tends to be Mac-centric
- 16:25:05 [fantasai]
- Steve: One set tends to be Windows-centric
- 16:25:23 [fantasai]
- Steve: And the third set, were put in to be platform independent.
- 16:25:37 [fantasai]
- Steve: Those should be used if they exist.
- 16:25:49 [fantasai]
- Steve: Then it's recommended that the distance between them equal one em, but it's not required.
- 16:26:00 [fantasai]
- Steve: There are fonts for which it doesn't hold.
- 16:26:25 [Zakim]
- -bradk
- 16:26:27 [fantasai]
- Steve: I suggest the difference between that and an em be split, half above and half below, just like leading
- 16:26:43 [Zakim]
- +bradk
- 16:26:45 [fantasai]
- Steve: The last point is, the reason you need to do that is that leading + embox = line height.
- 16:27:30 [fantasai]
- glazou: Do you mean we can't rely on the font's definitionof embox because it doesn't exist?
- 16:27:40 [fantasai]
- Steve: Right. I didn't get as far as suggesting a rewording of the text.
- 16:27:47 [fantasai]
- Steve: I got hung up on what centering meant.
- 16:28:34 [fantasai]
- Bert: I can come up with wording for that.
- 16:28:47 [fantasai]
- Bert: I have one concern which is, this applies to OpenType, but what about other font formats?
- 16:29:14 [fantasai]
- Steve: I think the general approach I talk about works for any font with ascent and descent information. We assume that information exists.
- 16:29:29 [fantasai]
- dbaron: We could say more broadly for any font that has any measurement relating the baseline to the edges of it
- 16:29:51 [fantasai]
- dbaron: What Steve describes matches what we implement more than Bert's definition.
- 16:30:11 [fantasai]
- dbaron: Although we never calculate the em-box, we just use the ascent and descent direction -- which is a shortcut for the same results.
- 16:30:27 [fantasai]
- Bert: Do we still keep the references to OpenType fields?
- 16:30:34 [fantasai]
- Steve: I would put it in an appendix or a note.
- 16:31:52 [dbaron]
- s/descent direction/descent and compute the half-leading differently/
- 16:31:53 [fantasai]
- fantasai: I would suggest putting the field names in a note, but using ascent and descent generically in the normative text.
- 16:33:03 [fantasai]
- Brad would like to make sure there's interop for the use of OpenType tables.
- 16:33:09 [fantasai]
- Steve suggests writing a test.
- 16:33:50 [fantasai]
- Bert: I think we can't make this more precise wrt OpenType in CSS2.
- 16:33:58 [fantasai]
- glazou: Do you have enough to come up up with wording?
- 16:34:01 [fantasai]
- Bert: I think so
- 16:34:20 [fantasai]
- ACTION: Bert to write updated proposal for 167
- 16:34:20 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-247 - Write updated proposal for 167 [on Bert Bos - due 2010-08-11].
- 16:34:52 [fantasai]
- glazou: Any progress on other issues?
- 16:36:21 [fantasai]
- glazou: Let's have proposals done by the F2F
- 16:37:04 [glazou]
- Zakim, who is noisy?
- 16:37:15 [Zakim]
- glazou, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: glazou (47%), arronei (13%), Bert (34%)
- 16:37:50 [fantasai]
- glazou: Issue 181
- 16:38:02 [dbaron]
- TabAtkins_, Where's the message you mentioned sending that had questions about margin collapsing?
- 16:38:05 [glazou]
- http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-181
- 16:39:02 [fantasai]
- fantasai suggests 184-186 being more important to discuss
- 16:39:18 [TabAtkins_]
- dbaron, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Jul/0525.html and 528
- 16:40:23 [fantasai]
- Tab: I think several things are way easier if you consider pseudo-elements as part of the element tree
- 16:40:37 [fantasai]
- Bert: But then the element tree is not a tree
- 16:42:41 [fantasai]
- glazou: Could say which sections pseudo-elements are treated as elements
- 16:42:53 [fantasai]
- fantasai: That would be pretty much the entire spec except the Selectors chapter
- 16:44:21 [fantasai]
- SteveZ: I support the "except" proposal in the issues list
- 16:45:32 [fantasai]
- dbaron: I might go so far as saying :before and :after are treated as real elements except where specified, and have :first-line and :first-letter just be defined by the Selectors chapter
- 16:45:46 [fantasai]
- fantasai: That doesn't give them enough definition -- e.g. how do we assign properties to them?
- 16:45:53 [fantasai]
- dbaron: That's already pretty bizarre
- 16:48:44 [fantasai]
- glazou: "Pseudo-elements behave just like real elements except as described below and elsewhere."
- 16:49:01 [fantasai]
- Steve: But then I have to search the entire spec.
- 16:49:13 [fantasai]
- Steve: At least point to the relevant sections
- 16:50:03 [fantasai]
- fantasai: I think the relevant section is 12.1
- 16:50:21 [glazou]
- http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-185
- 16:50:21 [fantasai]
- RESOLVED: "Pseudo-elements behave just like real element except as described below and in section 12.1"
- 16:51:28 [fantasai]
- dbaron: There are 2 different cases here, and I'm not sure which one he tested.
- 16:52:04 [fantasai]
- dbaron: There's one where you have a zero-height float whose position is right at the edge of a line
- 16:52:22 [fantasai]
- dbaron: And the other is where you have a zero-height float whose position is in the middle of the line (e.g. below another float)
- 16:53:10 [fantasai]
- dbaron: If the top of a float is even with the bottom of a line, or the bottom of a float is even with the top of a line, that's not considered an intersection.
- 16:53:18 [fantasai]
- dbaron: I'm not sure about the case of a zero-height float in the middle of a line
- 16:53:31 [fantasai]
- dbaron: But we should be careful that we're testing the right cases here.
- 16:54:35 [fantasai]
- ...
- 16:55:25 [fantasai]
- dbaron: There's another bug in browsers where floats that don't intersect the top of a line are not considered. This shows up in Wikipedia a lot because they use floats for their intended purpose.
- 16:55:37 [fantasai]
- dbaron: The only browsers that handle that right are IE6 and recent versions of Gecko
- 16:55:43 [dbaron]
- IE6/IE7
- 16:55:46 [dbaron]
- I think
- 16:56:00 [glazou]
- sylvaing: hey *I* did not get married last month ;-)
- 16:56:24 [fantasai]
- Tab: If you have two floats stacked on top of each other, one which is at the top of a line, and then a cleared float in the middle of the line, that second float doesn't push the line box even if it's wider than the line box.
- 16:56:49 [fantasai]
- Tab: In Gecko it pushes only if it's visible; if it's zero height it doesn't.
- 16:57:25 [fantasai]
- Tab: I don't mind Gecko's current behavior. And everyone else who doesn't match, they have a bug anyway.
- 16:58:12 [fantasai]
- Tab: I could go either way on it -- detecting or not detecting zero-height floats both make sense.
- 16:58:38 [fantasai]
- SteveZ: It makes sense for consistency to ignore it; since when it falls between lines it's ignored.
- 16:59:05 [fantasai]
- SteveZ: Why would one have a zero-height float?
- 16:59:18 [fantasai]
- SteveZ: I understand how it can happen; but is there a use case for it?
- 16:59:25 [fantasai]
- Tab can't think of one
- 16:59:38 [fantasai]
- Bert: It's a bit like positioned elements, that it's positioned at the auto position
- 17:00:14 [smfr]
- smfr has joined #css
- 17:00:18 [fantasai]
- Bert: I don't know if it would make sense to use a zero-height float instead of abspos, but if you wanted to make it overlap...
- 17:00:58 [Zakim]
- -smfr
- 17:02:03 [fantasai]
- Brad: What about a transition from zero-height to another height?
- 17:02:25 [Zakim]
- -TabAtkins_
- 17:02:30 [fantasai]
- Brad: You might want to cause reflow vertically, but not horizontally.
- 17:03:06 [fantasai]
- SteveZ: Is there a use case that isn't an edge use case for this?
- 17:03:47 [fantasai]
- glazou: If we have no use case, what do you suggest?
- 17:04:03 [fantasai]
- SteveZ: If we have interop, then it seems strange to break that.
- 17:04:08 [fantasai]
- Bert: What interop do we have?
- 17:04:52 [fantasai]
- dbaron: The other possibility is that we say zero-height floats never push lines. Which is nice, because it makes one implementation strategy easier.
- 17:05:21 [fantasai]
- dbaron: We split each side of a bfc into vertical ranges, and we check for whether to push lines by checking for an intersection.
- 17:05:37 [fantasai]
- dbaron: If we need to check for zero-height floats, then we need to deal with zero-height ranges, which is a bit of a pain.
- 17:05:43 [TabAtkins_]
- Isn't that exactly what's being proposed?
- 17:06:00 [fantasai]
- dbaron: If floats are changing height, there will be a lot of reflow anyway
- 17:06:50 [Zakim]
- -[Microsoft]
- 17:06:51 [Zakim]
- -bradk
- 17:06:52 [Zakim]
- -sylvaing
- 17:06:53 [Zakim]
- -[Apple]
- 17:06:54 [Zakim]
- -David_Baron
- 17:06:54 [Zakim]
- -SteveZ
- 17:06:55 [Zakim]
- -Bert
- 17:06:56 [Zakim]
- -glazou
- 17:06:57 [fantasai]
- SteveZ: So, proposed to make zero-height floats not affect line boxes, will ask for objections and resolve next week.
- 17:07:04 [Zakim]
- -fantasai
- 17:07:07 [Zakim]
- -arronei
- 17:07:20 [Zakim]
- -plinss_
- 17:07:21 [Zakim]
- Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
- 17:07:23 [Zakim]
- Attendees were glazou, dsinger, arronei, plinss_, Bert, sylvaing, +1.650.766.aaaa, bradk, smfr, SteveZ, fantasai, JohnJansen, David_Baron, +1.650.214.aabb, TabAtkins_
- 17:08:25 [TabAtkins_]
- arronei: You can call me whenever. Same number as before.
- 17:57:26 [nimbupani]
- nimbupani has joined #css
- 18:25:30 [dbaron]
- dbaron has joined #css
- 19:13:02 [smfr]
- smfr has left #css
- 19:53:22 [ChrisL]
- ChrisL has joined #css
- 19:55:05 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #CSS
- 20:03:24 [jdaggett]
- jdaggett has joined #css
- 20:23:54 [nimbupani]
- nimbupani has joined #css
- 22:05:23 [fantasai]
- anne: Did the URI spec you were talking about in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Mar/0321.html ever get written?
- 22:09:10 [fantasai]
- jdaggett: Can I assume http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Mar/0330.html is on your radar somewhere?
- 22:31:44 [jdaggett]
- that was added to appendix a
- 22:31:53 [jdaggett]
- er, maybe that's b now
- 22:48:49 [Curt`]
- Curt` has joined #css
- 23:03:19 [szilles]
- szilles has joined #css