IRC log of CSS on 2010-11-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:34:27 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #CSS
16:34:27 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:34:32 [glazou]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:50:19 [kennyluck]
kennyluck has joined #CSS
16:54:16 [glazou]
Zakim, this will be Style
16:54:16 [Zakim]
ok, glazou; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
16:54:20 [oyvind]
oyvind has joined #css
16:54:39 [glazou]
Zakim, code?
16:54:39 [Zakim]
the conference code is 78953 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.203.318.0479), glazou
16:55:02 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
16:55:10 [Zakim]
+ +
16:56:00 [glazou]
Zakim, aaaa is me
16:56:00 [Zakim]
+glazou; got it
16:56:30 [arronei]
arronei has joined #CSS
17:00:20 [Zakim]
17:00:39 [Zakim]
17:00:48 [johnjan]
johnjan has joined #css
17:01:00 [johnjan]
zakim, microsoft is johnjan
17:01:00 [Zakim]
+johnjan; got it
17:01:50 [Zakim]
17:01:57 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.253.aabb
17:02:09 [arronei]
zakim, microsoft has me
17:02:09 [Zakim]
+arronei; got it
17:02:13 [Zakim]
17:02:14 [Zakim]
17:02:21 [glazou]
Zakim, aabb is tabatkins
17:02:21 [Zakim]
+tabatkins; got it
17:02:30 [Zakim]
17:02:34 [tabatkin1]
tabatkin1 has joined #css
17:02:49 [dbaron]
Zakim, [Mozilla] is dbaron
17:02:49 [Zakim]
+dbaron; got it
17:05:40 [Zakim]
17:05:50 [Zakim]
+ +47.21.65.aacc
17:05:55 [howcome]
howcome has joined #css
17:05:57 [Zakim]
- +47.21.65.aacc
17:06:29 [tabatkin1]
tabatkin1 has joined #css
17:07:18 [tabatkin1]
ScribeNick: tabatkin1
17:07:24 [tabatkin1]
glazou: Main topic is 2.1 and tests
17:07:31 [tabatkin1]
glazou: Did we make any progress since TPAC?
17:07:38 [ChrisL]
ChrisL has joined #css
17:08:02 [tabatkin1]
johnjan: I think arron got all his tests submitted, so the remaining feedback is fantasai's.
17:08:09 [howcome]
howcome has +47.21.65.aacc
17:08:16 [glazou]
17:08:31 [howcome]
zakim, howcome has +47.21.65.aacc
17:08:31 [Zakim]
sorry, howcome, I do not recognize a party named 'howcome'
17:08:41 [nimbupani]
nimbupani has joined #css
17:08:42 [dbaron]
Zakim, aacc is howcome
17:08:42 [Zakim]
sorry, dbaron, I do not recognize a party named 'aacc'
17:08:47 [Zakim]
+ +39.524.9.aadd
17:09:09 [smfr]
smfr has joined #css
17:09:27 [tabatkin1]
glazou: Do you think the tpac deadlines we set are still doable?
17:09:30 [tabatkin1]
arronei: Yeah.
17:09:46 [tabatkin1]
szilles: Elika's flying this morning and won't be on the call.
17:09:53 [ChrisL]
Regrets+: Elika
17:10:11 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.636.aaee
17:10:16 [smfr]
Zakim, aaee is me
17:10:16 [Zakim]
+smfr; got it
17:10:27 [dbaron]
Zakim, aadd is ChrisL
17:10:27 [Zakim]
+ChrisL; got it
17:10:37 [tabatkin1]
johnjan: Next thing is spec issues that came up due to the testing; not specifically spec issues, but may require us to modify the spec.
17:10:42 [ChrisL]
zakim, +39 is me
17:10:42 [Zakim]
sorry, ChrisL, I do not recognize a party named '+39'
17:10:44 [tabatkin1]
glazou: Do we have a list of these issues?
17:11:08 [tabatkin1]
arronei: No.
17:11:37 [tabatkin1]
arronei: Were we going to discuss issue 101?
17:11:37 [glazou]
Zakim, who is noisy?
17:11:37 [ChrisL]
zakim, who is noisy?
17:11:48 [Zakim]
glazou, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: glazou (20%), SteveZ (5%)
17:11:59 [Zakim]
ChrisL, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: glazou (52%), tabatkins (4%), SteveZ (18%)
17:12:12 [tabatkin1]
glazou: Let's talk about 101.
17:12:28 [dbaron]
17:13:17 [murakami]
murakami has joined #css
17:13:50 [tabatkin1]
johnjan: IE9 has implemented rules 3 and 7 per spec now.
17:14:14 [Zakim]
+ +47.21.65.aaff
17:14:24 [tabatkin1]
johnjan: We feared that, since everyone broke those rules it would have a compat impact, but it turns out that's not true.
17:14:26 [dbaron]
Zakim, aaff is howcome
17:14:26 [Zakim]
+howcome; got it
17:14:48 [tabatkin1]
dbaron: It would be relatively straightforward to fix, but I'm not particularly comfortable doing so before the FF4 branch.
17:15:02 [tabatkin1]
dbaron: Does the IE mode switching mean you're only testing some subset of pages?
17:15:23 [tabatkin1]
johnjan: This should be all modes. We force standards mode on pages when we test things like this.
17:15:33 [tabatkin1]
dbaron: But you haven't tested quirks?
17:15:44 [tabatkin1]
johnjan: Not sure.
17:15:53 [tabatkin1]
dbaron: Do quirksmode pages still render with a different engine in IE9 beta?
17:16:34 [tabatkin1]
arronei: We currently force the mode into standards mode and then test the page. So a quirksmode page will still get tested in standards.
17:17:20 [tabatkin1]
tabatkin1: If there's no significant compat impact, then I'm comfortable with dropping my proposal and keeping the spec as written.
17:17:28 [tabatkin1]
glazou: So what's the preference of implementors?
17:17:34 [tabatkin1]
johnjan: I'd like to keep the spec as-is.
17:17:51 [tabatkin1]
dbaron: It's sorta hard to tell my final answer until I implement it, but I'm okay with keeping things as-is for now.
17:18:01 [tabatkin1]
smfr: Agree with David.
17:18:19 [tabatkin1]
glazou: So I'm hearing consensus to keep the text as-is and revisit the issue as needed.
17:18:52 [tabatkin1]
RESOLVED: Keep the current spec text for Issue 101, revisit this in the future after other browsers have implemented per spec.
17:18:53 [glazou]
17:19:02 [tabatkin1]
Topic: Intrinsic widths and heights.
17:19:16 [tabatkin1]
dbaron: There's spec text about intrinsic widths and heights, based I think on a misunderstanding of some language in SVG.
17:19:27 [tabatkin1]
dbaron: I think this led to some bugs in implementations.
17:19:36 [ChrisL]
I agree, it has been misinterpreted and gives rise to undesirable behaviour
17:19:50 [tabatkin1]
dbaron: In our case we implemented the weird behavior because we thought it's what we needed to do, even though we didn't particularly like the result.
17:19:52 [szilles]
szilles has joined #css
17:20:15 [tabatkin1]
dbaron: I think there are test-cases in the 2.1 suite that rely on this behavior, though I'd have to doublecheck to be sure.
17:20:21 [smfr]
dbaron: maybe replaced-intrinsic-ratio-001.* ?
17:20:36 [tabatkin1]
ChrisL: I talked with elika at tpac and agreed that it's easy to misinterpret.
17:20:53 [dbaron]
smfr, yep
17:21:10 [tabatkin1]
tabatkin1: I think I misinterpreted it in the same way as everyone else when talking with Chrome's implementors.
17:21:32 [dbaron]
17:22:21 [tabatkin1]
smfr: It seems that Chris is saying the spec is poorly worded, but dbaron is saying we should remove %age width and height.
17:22:46 [tabatkin1]
dbaron: The underlying issue is that the SVG wording at the above url defines intrinsic sizes of SVG in a way that there is never a % intrinsic width or height.
17:23:09 [tabatkin1]
dbaron: So basically we have no use-case whatsoever for %age intrinsic width and height, but we refer to it from the CSS spec, which confused people into thinking there is such a thing.
17:23:14 [tabatkin1]
dbaron: So we should remove it as a concept.
17:23:24 [tabatkin1]
ChrisL: I'm trying to clarify what parts remain and what parts will be cut.
17:23:37 [tabatkin1]
smfr: Seems like we just need some proposed changes to the spec.
17:23:54 [tabatkin1]
dbaron: I sent the initial email in the middle of our discussion with SVG, so I'm not sure how explicit I was.
17:24:09 [tabatkin1]
smfr: I'd have to go back and study that part of the spec and see what Webkit is doing there, but this sounds reasonable.
17:25:13 [tabatkin1]
glazou: Then I suggest we accept dbaron's proposal, pending an email from webkit saying you agree.
17:25:13 [tabatkin1]
action on simon to see if the intrinsic width change is acceptable for Webkit.
17:25:13 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - on
17:25:17 [tabatkin1]
action simon to see if the intrinsic width change is acceptable for Webkit.
17:25:17 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-274 - See if the intrinsic width change is acceptable for Webkit. [on Simon Fraser - due 2010-11-17].
17:25:25 [tabatkin1]
Topic: Charter update
17:25:37 [tabatkin1]
ChrisL: I sent a link to the charter to glazou, plinss_, and bert.
17:25:49 [tabatkin1]
ChrisL: PLH thought we were preparing the charter for March.
17:26:19 [tabatkin1]
ChrisL: PLH says we can't *say* 2.1 is done until it's actually done. Since we said it would be done in march, he thought we shoudl pursue an extension for March.
17:26:47 [tabatkin1]
ChrisL: And then get a proper charter renew there in march when 2.1 is done.
17:26:53 [tabatkin1]
glazou: And a charter extension is easier, right?
17:27:02 [tabatkin1]
ChrisL: Yes. There's still discussion required, but it's simpler.
17:27:15 [tabatkin1]
glazou: So, who disagrees with a charter extension to finish 2.1?
17:27:42 [tabatkin1]
dbaron: I'd heard that Tantek wanted to get UI published, which would require rechartering since it wasn't in our current charter.
17:27:57 [tabatkin1]
ChrisL: Can that be described as part of another spec?
17:28:05 [Zakim]
+ +1.858.216.aagg
17:28:07 [tabatkin1]
Bert: It's in the scope section, talking about styling of UI widgets.
17:28:16 [plinss_]
zakim, aagg is me
17:28:16 [Zakim]
+plinss_; got it
17:28:18 [tabatkin1]
ChrisL: If it's in scope, then there's no need to worry about publishing it.
17:28:31 [Bert]
" It also includes the presentation and behavior of UI widgets."
17:28:45 [tabatkin1]
dbaron: If publishing UI is fine under the current charter, then I'm okay with doing an extension.
17:29:10 [tabatkin1]
RESOLVED: Request an extension of the CSS charter until March.
17:29:28 [glazou]
17:29:30 [tabatkin1]
Topic: Background shorthand
17:29:46 [dbaron]
I think we should have fantasai around for this discussion.
17:30:09 [tabatkin1]
glazou: Reported by Yves Lafon, about having a double slash in the border-image shorthand.
17:30:45 [tabatkin1]
szilles: Let's talk about XXX first. I didn't see an updated draft from Elika, but I think there was an agreement from the WG that everything minus logical properties was acceptable for a fpwd, so we'd like to get that going if there's no objection.
17:30:54 [tabatkin1]
s/XXX/Writing Modes/
17:31:20 [tabatkin1]
dbaron: You mean all of section 7 in the spec?
17:31:25 [tabatkin1]
szilles: Yes.
17:31:39 [tabatkin1]
dbaron: That seems reasonable to me, but I'd like to give jdaggett a chance to raise something.
17:31:49 [tabatkin1]
dbaron: I'd be fine with a resolution if we give jdaggett a chance to reject.
17:32:09 [tabatkin1]
plinss_: I think jdaggett was there when we resolved, we just deferred the actual resolution so we could see the edits that were being done.
17:32:12 [tabatkin1]
dbaron: Sounds fine.
17:32:24 [tabatkin1]
glazou: So do we wait for the edits or resolve now?
17:33:39 [tabatkin1]
RESOLVED: Publish Writing Modes, minus chapter 7 over logical properties, subject to potential objections from jdaggett.
17:33:59 [tabatkin1]
ACTION dbaron to ping jdaggett about Writing Modes to make sure it all looks okay.
17:33:59 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-275 - Ping jdaggett about Writing Modes to make sure it all looks okay. [on David Baron - due 2010-11-17].
17:34:31 [tabatkin1]
glazou: I think dbaron requested that we push the border-image issue until Elika is here.
17:34:38 [dbaron]
Topic: css3-2d-transforms
17:34:39 [tabatkin1]
smfr: About 2d transforms
17:35:03 [tabatkin1]
smfr: First is transforms on inline elements. We don't currently have compat. Gecko has certain confusing behavior about rotating each individual box.
17:35:16 [tabatkin1]
smfr: Conceptually I don't think there's a behavior that's reasonable for users.
17:35:48 [tabatkin1]
smfr: I propose we restrict transforms to only act on things that aren't inlines.
17:36:23 [tabatkin1]
glazou: I have a problem. That wouldn't allow an image to be rotated in a paragraph.
17:36:41 [dbaron]
things that aren't non-replaced inlines
17:36:48 [tabatkin1]
tabatkin1: No, the term we'd use to restrict them would still allow transformation of things like inline-blocks and images.
17:37:42 [tabatkin1]
smfr: One use-case is to scale a link on hover, which works fine until the link gets broken across lines. You could just make them inline-block.
17:38:10 [tabatkin1]
tabatkin1: I brought this up at TPAC, and we discussed seeing if we could propertly define a notion of bounding box and transform that.
17:38:39 [tabatkin1]
dbaron: We tried that, but the overflow behavior is hard.
17:39:15 [tabatkin1]
smfr: And I don't think it results in good behavior still - in the link-broken-across-lines case, a scale or skew causes it to grow outside of the element, which is weird.
17:39:43 [tabatkin1]
smfr: I should come up with correct wording so we don't prevent inline-blocks and such.
17:40:17 [tabatkin1]
ACTION simon to send an email to the list with suggested wording for transform change.
17:40:17 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-276 - Send an email to the list with suggested wording for transform change. [on Simon Fraser - due 2010-11-17].
17:40:54 [tabatkin1]
smfr: Next, CSS agreed to move forward on css transforms for CSS, but FXTF wants to work on it as well and have it apply jointly to CSS and SVG.
17:41:37 [tabatkin1]
smfr: These seem to be in conflict - I don't see how the CSSWG can move forward on a 2d transforms spec at the same time as the FXTF creates one that also works in SVG.
17:41:48 [tabatkin1]
smfr: So I'm a little confused about how to proceed.
17:42:14 [tabatkin1]
ChrisL: I'm confused too, becuase I thought we'd already agreed. The FXTF had already evolved into harmony, but then the CSSWG spec seems to be changing independently.
17:42:34 [tabatkin1]
ChrisL: Technically, I believe that the spec would have two conformance classes, one for CSS and one for SVG.
17:43:36 [tabatkin1]
ChrisL: I believe that MS in the meeting was saying they look forward to the joint spec so they can work on both things.
17:44:12 [tabatkin1]
smfr: Webkit doesn't currently necessarily have correct behavior when it comes to CSS transforms applied to SVG.
17:44:37 [tabatkin1]
ChrisL: Right, but I think it's easier to just go ahead and find the joint issues now, rather than try and develop on just one side and then later find incompatibilities.
17:44:50 [tabatkin1]
ChrisL: In other words, I don't think pursuing it jointly will necessarily be slower.
17:45:31 [tabatkin1]
smfr: Right; I just want to make sure that the resolution to move Transforms 2d forward wasn't in conflict with the combined effort.
17:45:37 [tabatkin1]
tabatkin1: It isn't.
17:45:45 [tabatkin1]
ChrisL: What exactly was resolved?
17:45:53 [tabatkin1]
tabatkin1: I'd have to look in the minutes to be certain.
17:48:00 [tabatkin1]
tabatkin1: I don't believe that anyone is ever consciously trying to do something against the FXTF integration.
17:48:06 [tabatkin1]
glazou: Right, definitely to the contrary.
17:48:41 [tabatkin1]
smfr: It's probably up to the FXTF to look at the resolutions the CSSWG made during TPAC and ensure they're integrated properly.
17:49:32 [tabatkin1]
ChrisL: I'm not saying there's any conscious objection, I'm just concerned about accidental incompatibilities.
17:50:36 [tabatkin1]
tabatkin1: Do we want to split Transforms, so we can push forward with the simple stuff and get it unprefixed, while putting the new element-point api in level 4?
17:50:47 [tabatkin1]
ChrisL: Maybe. This sounds like we should talk about it in the FXTF.
17:52:47 [tabatkin1]
tabatkin1: New topic - splitting the display property. Do we want to pursue this? I think we need to, given that we're pushing the new layout modes.
17:52:52 [tabatkin1]
dbaron: I think we need to look at this.
17:53:04 [dbaron]
(details need to be worked out)
17:53:05 [tabatkin1]
szilles: Can we get a pointer to the latest proposal?
17:53:19 [tabatkin1]
tabatkin1: Yeah, I'll send something to the list.
17:53:54 [Zakim]
17:53:55 [tabatkin1]
glazou: Tab, could you send the minutes quickly?
17:53:59 [Zakim]
17:54:01 [Zakim]
17:54:01 [Zakim]
17:54:03 [Zakim]
17:54:22 [Zakim]
17:54:24 [Zakim]
17:54:27 [ChrisL]
rrsagent, draft minutes
17:54:27 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisL
17:54:27 [Zakim]
17:54:29 [Zakim]
17:54:45 [Zakim]
17:54:55 [Zakim]
17:54:57 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
17:54:59 [Zakim]
Attendees were +, glazou, Bert, johnjan, +1.650.253.aabb, arronei, tabatkins, dbaron, SteveZ, +47.21.65.aacc, +39.524.9.aadd, +1.408.636.aaee, smfr, ChrisL,
17:55:01 [Zakim]
... +47.21.65.aaff, howcome, +1.858.216.aagg, plinss_
17:55:22 [glazou]
Chris, yt ?
17:55:39 [ChrisL]
17:55:49 [ChrisL]
Chair: glazou
17:55:53 [ChrisL]
rrsagent, draft minutes
17:55:53 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisL
17:56:28 [glazou]
see query Chris
17:58:36 [glazou]
ChrisL: see /query
18:02:35 [smfr]
smfr has left #css
18:09:28 [tabatkin1]
tabatkin1 has joined #css
18:43:45 [smfr]
smfr has joined #css
18:43:50 [smfr]
dbaron: still around?
18:44:01 [dbaron]
smfr, yep
18:44:28 [smfr]
dbaron: is there a desired rendering for file:///Volumes/InternalData/Development/webkit/OpenSource/WebKitTools/CSSTestSuiteHarness/20101001/html4/replaced-intrinsic-ratio-001.htm as it stands, or is the behavior just undefined
18:44:47 [dbaron]
smfr, I think there is a desired rendering, and the test may well be correct.
18:44:51 [smfr]
webkit doesn't resize the <object>s at all.
18:44:58 [smfr]
opera and gecko make them the width of the body
18:45:22 [dbaron]
smfr, I haven't checked the test, and doing so would likely take a bit of time.
18:45:26 [dbaron]
(I might soon, though...)
18:45:34 [smfr]
hyatt and I are trying to figure out what should happen
18:46:00 [smfr]
is the svg considered to have an intrinsic size of 1000 x 250?
18:46:05 [smfr]
18:53:00 [dbaron]
I think it's supposed to have an intrinsic ratio but no intrinsic size.
18:59:36 [dbaron]
smfr, ^
19:24:43 [dbaron]
Also note that the test has evolved over time:
19:24:48 [dbaron]
19:24:53 [dbaron]
19:24:58 [dbaron]
19:45:38 [Ms2ger]
Ms2ger has joined #css
19:50:39 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #CSS
20:55:13 [ChrisL]
ChrisL has joined #css
20:59:16 [jdaggett]
jdaggett has joined #css
23:05:57 [homata]
homata has joined #CSS
23:09:24 [homata_]
homata_ has joined #CSS
23:41:10 [nimbupani]
nimbupani has joined #css