IRC log of css on 2011-05-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:55:41 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #css
15:55:41 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/05/11-css-irc
15:55:51 [plinss]: zakim, this will be style
15:55:51 [Zakim]: ok, plinss; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
15:56:07 [Zakim]: Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
15:56:14 [Zakim]: +plinss
15:57:50 [Zakim]: + +1.650.214.aaaa
15:57:56 [TabAtkins_]: Zakim, aaaa is TabAtkins
15:57:56 [Zakim]: +TabAtkins; got it
15:59:07 [danielweck]: danielweck has joined #css
15:59:10 [oyvind]: oyvind has joined #css
15:59:37 [Zakim]: +??P32
15:59:56 [Zakim]: +[Microsoft]
15:59:57 [arronei]: zakim, microsoft has me
15:59:58 [Zakim]: +arronei; got it
16:00:14 [danielweck]: Zakim, ??P32is me
16:00:14 [Zakim]: I don't understand '??P32is me', danielweck
16:00:32 [danielweck]: zakim, ??P32 is me
16:00:32 [Zakim]: +danielweck; got it
16:00:40 [Zakim]: + +1.206.324.aabb
16:00:42 [smfr]: smfr has joined #css
16:01:03 [Zakim]: +??P37
16:01:04 [arno]: arno has joined #css
16:01:07 [Zakim]: + +1.408.536.aacc
16:01:17 [arno]: zakim, aacc is arno
16:01:17 [Zakim]: +arno; got it
16:01:39 [Zakim]: -??P37
16:01:54 [Zakim]: +smfr
16:01:58 [Zakim]: +??P37
16:02:07 [Zakim]: +[Microsoft.a]
16:02:10 [kojiishi]: zakim, ??p37 is me
16:02:10 [Zakim]: +kojiishi; got it
16:02:14 [johnjan]: johnjan has joined #css
16:02:30 [johnjan]: zakim, microsoft has johnjan
16:02:30 [Zakim]: +johnjan; got it
16:02:40 [cesar]: cesar has joined #css
16:02:54 [sylvaing]: Zakim, aabb is sylvaing
16:02:54 [Zakim]: +sylvaing; got it
16:02:56 [Zakim]: +bradk
16:03:55 [Zakim]: + +050134aadd
16:04:02 [danielweck]: zakim, who am I ?
16:04:02 [Zakim]: I don't understand your question, danielweck.
16:04:09 [danielweck]: zakim, never mind.
16:04:09 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'never mind', danielweck
16:04:14 [Zakim]: + +1.415.920.aaee
16:04:53 [szilles]: szilles has joined #css
16:05:21 [cathy]: cathy has joined #css
16:05:57 [Zakim]: +Cathy_Chan
16:06:48 [fantasai]: ScribeNick: fantasai
16:06:51 [Zakim]: + +1.408.536.aaff
16:07:11 [fantasai]: plinss: Any other items for the agenda?
16:07:12 [murakami]: murakami has joined #css
16:07:20 [fantasai]: szilles: WD status for regions?
16:07:38 [alexmog]: alexmog has joined #css
16:08:04 [fantasai]: plinss: Kyoto F2F, need agenda items
16:08:23 [fantasai]: plinss: Add them earlier so people have time to review and prepare
16:08:38 [fantasai]: http://wiki.csswg.org/planning/japan-2011
16:08:53 [fantasai]: plinss: Bert sent a message that we're missing reviews for CSS2.1
16:09:02 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: Is there a way to see who has sent in a review?
16:09:14 [plinss]: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/css21pr/results
16:09:31 [fantasai]: plinss: MS, Mozilla, Opera, and Apple have responded
16:09:43 [fantasai]: ?: Adobe?
16:10:16 [fantasai]: (Nokia and Opera are the others who have responded so far)
16:10:22 [fantasai]: plinss: Chris is missing, can't talk about charter
16:10:28 [fantasai]: plinss: Is Bert here to talk about website?
16:10:35 [fantasai]: plinss: Nope.
16:10:43 [fantasai]: plinss: Next is spec annotation system
16:10:51 [fantasai]: plinss: Just wanted to get some quick input, discussed on email
16:11:03 [fantasai]: plinss: Do we want to add this to CSS2.1? Do we want to use moving forward?
16:11:10 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: Would def like to use for specs I edit
16:11:14 [fantasai]: szilles: +1
16:11:20 [sylvaing]: +1 as well
16:11:27 [fantasai]: arronei: Would like for 2.1 and any in the future if possible
16:11:43 [fantasai]: plinss: Any objection to adding to CSs2.1?
16:11:52 [fantasai]: RESOLVED: Use spec annotation system for CSS2.1 and future specs
16:12:13 [Zakim]: + +34.92.38.aagg
16:12:17 [fantasai]: topic: CJK longhand styles
16:12:19 [plinss]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Apr/0764.html
16:12:35 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: Some ppl objected to complexity in lists
16:12:46 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: The only complex parts I could potentially remove are the special styles like CJK ones
16:12:57 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: They were defined up to 10^16, which is way more than any impl can do
16:13:14 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: If I limit range to 10^4 I can represent Japanese and Korean styles as additive style
16:13:19 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: And Chinese becomes much simpler
16:13:25 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: I think 10,000 is a reasonable limit here.
16:13:46 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: I wanted to know if anyone wants CJK longhand styles to go beyond
16:14:01 [fantasai]: arronei: I think your limit is reasonable, but I don't think it should be a hard limit.
16:14:09 [fantasai]: arronei: If a UA wants to go beyond then it should be able to do that.
16:14:10 [glazou]: glazou has joined #css
16:14:21 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: When you exceed the range, you drop to a fallback style
16:14:32 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: In this case, drops to cjk-decimal
16:14:45 [Zakim]: +??P0
16:14:51 [glazou]: Zakim, ??P0 is me
16:14:51 [Zakim]: +glazou; got it
16:14:51 [fantasai]: bradk: Can't we say that if the UA supports the larger numbers, then they should do it in the more sophisticated way?
16:14:57 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: If I'm not specifying it
16:15:05 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: I either specify a larger range or a shorter range
16:15:36 [fantasai]: sylvaing: So once the fallback comes, can you get the proper numbers by more rules?
16:15:43 [fantasai]: sylvaing: by specifying ... [????]
16:15:53 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: theoretically
16:16:27 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: Officially, I could go up to 10^5 and still have all the same benefits, it's just 10^6 Japanese and Korean can't be additive, and Chinese gets more complex
16:16:36 [fantasai]: sylvaing: I would rather have the spec be clear
16:16:48 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: There are other number systems already in the spec that have similar problems.
16:17:02 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: Hebrew, ex, has ways of expressing numbers beyond the range in the spec right now.
16:17:18 [fantasai]: sylvaing: The use case isn't representing all numbers
16:17:30 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: I could potentially go through and identify all the types of lists that have longer representations than I've defined
16:17:46 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: Like circled decimal type, only has 50 Unicode chars. You could always synthesize more
16:18:00 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: But I don't want to make things vague.
16:18:17 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: Going through and explaining how to extend them would be more complexity than people want
16:18:26 [fantasai]: bradk: You were talking about putting those in an appendix
16:18:36 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: The definitions are part of the spec in an appendix for ua stylesheet
16:18:52 [fantasai]: bradk: If you wanted to go beyond 10,000 you could still recommend what the UA puts in its style sheet
16:18:59 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: If I carve out an exception for CJK longhand
16:19:03 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: That's inconsistent
16:19:18 [cesar]: zakim, aadd is me
16:19:18 [Zakim]: +cesar; got it
16:19:49 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: We do know how to do it correctly, but nobody wanted to do that.
16:20:05 [fantasai]: fantasai: Not true. Webkit implements it in full (though buggy) and Mozilla implements it correctly up to its internal counter limit
16:20:15 [fantasai]: s/in full//
16:20:38 [fantasai]: bradk: Even if there were some exceptions for e.g. cjk-longhand, I think there'd be some value to have an exception for UAs that want beyond 10,000
16:21:09 [fantasai]: bradk: Some UAs in todays world have a problem going beyond such large numbers, but at some point other UAs won't mind
16:21:17 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: So at that point we'll require larger limits
16:21:30 [fantasai]: ?: ... that don't want those limits
16:21:37 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: Hardware limits always override anything the spec says
16:22:15 [fantasai]: 1) Define cjk counter styles up to 10^16 (full definition)
16:22:36 [fantasai]: 2) Define them up to 10,000 (artificially limited to simplify)
16:22:47 [fantasai]: 3) Allow both behaviors
16:23:28 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: Note, the full definition is up to 10^68, but usually beyond that you switch to scientific notation
16:23:56 [fantasai]: fantasai: But we have a definition for up to 10^16 that we're pretty sure is correct
16:24:13 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: Everybody does counters up to 2^30, some go up to 2^31
16:24:20 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: That's like 10^12
16:24:45 [Zakim]: +[Apple]
16:24:58 [hober]: Zakim, Apple has me
16:24:58 [Zakim]: +hober; got it
16:25:24 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: There are only two complex styles left. Ethiopic-numeric and cjk longhand
16:25:51 [fantasai]: sylvaing: It's complex for no use case, why would you have such a long list?
16:25:58 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: Most styles defined to infinity, note
16:26:15 [fantasai]: bradk: Web is a big place. I'm not sure there aren't lists that go beyond 10,000 or that start at 10,000 and go to 20,000
16:26:25 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: There are other types defined up to infinity
16:26:40 [dsinger]: dsinger has joined #css
16:27:16 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: If I define the CJK styles out more fully, I'll want to define the other styles more fully
16:27:25 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: to be more consistent
16:27:43 [fantasai]: ?: 10,000 seems like a reasonable artificial limit especially if we define the fallback for what happens if we go beyond that
16:28:08 [fantasai]: s/?/Arno
16:28:38 [fantasai]: plinss: I do think 10,000 items in the list is a reasonable limit, but I'm concerned about lists that don't counting at 1
16:28:48 [fantasai]: sylvaing: Maybe the use case is someone who has a paged view of a database
16:29:03 [fantasai]: sylvaing: You start at 12,000 one a particular page
16:29:26 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: Printouts like that are the only really strong use case for lists that start at large numbers, and you won't use cjk longhand for that
16:29:42 [fantasai]: glazou: Use case is email. You can have thousands of email in a list
16:30:09 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: are you going to use CJK numbers for that?
16:30:11 [fantasai]: glazou: why not
16:31:18 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: Note that 10,000 and beyond will have a lot of characters, you have around two chars per digit
16:31:34 [fantasai]: glazou: 10,000 is fairly common. 100,000 is more reasonable.
16:31:42 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: I can go to 100,000 and keep things simple as they are
16:31:54 [fantasai]: glazou: I think that drastically reduces the risk of problems in the future
16:33:10 [fantasai]: sylvaing: ... the use case for high numbers is when you start at a very high number
16:33:24 [fantasai]: sylvaing: e.g. a paginated view of database results
16:33:33 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: Is it use case enough that we define how to work those things?
16:35:01 [dsinger]: as I said before, we can define conformance out to some reasonable finite limit. well, we have to.
16:35:23 [dsinger]: and then if the definition of how to go higher is referenced or provided, UAs are welcome to knock themselves out
16:36:13 [fantasai]: fantasai: So we could spend the rest of the call talking about databases, or we could resolve on what to do
16:36:58 [fantasai]: 1) Define cjk counter up to 10^16 (full definition that we have ready to go, more than counter hardware limits in place now)
16:37:05 [fantasai]: 2) Definte them up to 10,000
16:37:11 [fantasai]: 3) Definte them up to 100,000
16:37:41 [fantasai]: 4) Put both definitions in the spec, allow UA to implement either, and mark full definition at-risk to see what ppl implement in CR
16:38:24 [fantasai]: arronei: I still think that UAs /may/ support up to 100,000 but may support numbers higher and leave it undefined
16:38:50 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: You do have to define it because it's complex and ppl /will/ get it wrong
16:39:02 [fantasai]: fantasai: And we have the correct definitions already
16:39:04 [Zakim]: -Cathy_Chan
16:39:40 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: I don't want ppl to get fallback in one UA, correct result in another UA, and wrong result in another UA because they got it wrong
16:39:48 [Zakim]: -bradk
16:40:02 [dsinger]: UAs are always at liberty to exceed requirements. you don't even have to say it
16:40:06 [fantasai]: glazou: You can always add a note that CSSWG might define beyond the limit later
16:40:08 [Zakim]: +bradk
16:40:50 [fantasai]: glazou: Put the definition to 100,000, allow UAs to go beyond, and add the note
16:40:51 [dsinger]: I just think it might be safer to define what they should do beyond the conformance limit, if they want to. it can be purely informative text
16:41:11 [fantasai]: fantasai: We have tnhe definition, if we're allowing UAs to go beyond the limit, I don't see any reason not to put the definition in the spec
16:41:22 [fantasai]: TabAtkins_: I prefer 3, can live with 1
16:41:44 [dsinger]: as I say, you can't prohibit people from doing more than is required
16:41:46 [fantasai]: 5) Define up to 100,000, allow UA to go beyond it, but DONT put a definition in for beyond 100,000
16:42:17 [fantasai]: 6) Definte up 100,000 allow UA to go beyond it, put an informative definition in for byeond 100,000
16:42:32 [fantasai]: We'll put a note for all of them
16:43:23 [fantasai]: dweck: My knowldge is limited. Abstain
16:43:59 [fantasai]: sylvaing: I think 6 works for me
16:44:03 [dsinger]: (1) is a testing nightmare, isn't it?
16:44:10 [fantasai]: arno: Go with 3, but live with 6
16:44:19 [fantasai]: smfr: 6
16:44:27 [Zakim]: -danielweck
16:44:33 [smfr]: let's give Tab more work :)
16:44:36 [fantasai]: koji: I prefer 6
16:44:44 [Zakim]: +??P10
16:44:49 [danielweck]: zakim, ??P10 is me
16:44:49 [Zakim]: +danielweck; got it
16:44:54 [fantasai]: arronei: 6
16:45:17 [fantasai]: césar: not sure
16:45:25 [fantasai]: Bert: no opinion
16:45:28 [fantasai]: glazou: 6
16:45:32 [fantasai]: bradk: 6
16:45:50 [fantasai]: plinss: I prefer 4, could live with 6
16:46:02 [dsinger]: dave defers to smfr (he's always right): 6
16:46:16 [fantasai_]: fantasai_ has joined #css
16:46:29 [fantasai_]: hober: I prefer 6, but happy for tab to do less work as 3
16:46:39 [fantasai_]: szilles: prefer 3, live with 6
16:46:53 [fantasai_]: johnjan: prefers 6, very against 2
16:47:10 [fantasai_]: fantasai: same as plinss
16:48:17 [fantasai_]: RESOLVED: Define up to 100,000 with fallback to cjk-decimal beyond, allow UAs to implement longhand beyond that limit, put definition in informative appendix
16:49:06 [fantasai]: RESOLVED http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2011AprJun/0245.html
16:49:12 [fantasai]: not, noresolved
16:49:57 [nimbupani]: nimbupani has joined #css
16:50:57 [nimbupani]: nimbupani has left #css
16:51:05 [Zakim]: -bradk
16:51:10 [fantasai_]: fantasai summarizes email
16:51:20 [fantasai_]: TabAtkins_: I'm going to want them defined because I need them in FlexBox for similar reasons
16:51:24 [fantasai]: fantasai summarizes issues
16:51:26 [Zakim]: +bradk
16:51:41 [fantasai_]: plinss: I'd like to see these width values advance as quickly as possible
16:52:47 [fantasai_]: plinss: My concern is that UAs that don't want to support vertical mode
16:52:53 [Zakim]: -bradk
16:53:01 [fantasai_]: fantasai_: We can make it explicit that you can implement the module in parts, maybe make profiles
16:53:17 [fantasai]: fantasai has joined #css
16:53:32 [Zakim]: +bradk
16:53:41 [fantasai_]: plinss: Is that the best place to put it?
16:53:44 [fantasai_]: fantasai: I think so
16:54:38 [fantasai_]: [...] Bert: torn between elika and peter, would be hard to split it out
16:54:49 [fantasai_]: szilles: We should get it in and get it reviewed
16:55:22 [fantasai_]: arronei: put it in values and units?
16:55:31 [fantasai_]: fantasai: no, it's very tied to layout
16:56:08 [fantasai_]: fantasai: I have to define the concepts in writing modes anyway, I can just say 'btw, here are keywords for this'
16:56:21 [fantasai_]: fantasai: Can make a new section for it
16:56:29 [fantasai_]: fantasai: right now it's an appendix, could even leave it in the appendix
16:56:35 [fantasai_]: szilles: normative appendix sounds good to me
16:56:42 [fantasai_]: plinss: and all parts Tab would refer to are in that appendix?
16:56:44 [fantasai_]: fantasai: yeah
16:57:28 [fantasai_]: fantasai: if you really want to split it out later, let's do it as an editorial change in CR
16:57:47 [szilles]: +1 for a normative appendix in Writing Modes
16:57:49 [fantasai_]: arronei: make sure it's normative
16:58:05 [fantasai_]: arron: I would prefer a separate spec, but not against making it a normative appendix
16:58:31 [fantasai_]: szilles: I agree that it really belongs in the Box Module, but it needs to be in something that's progressing faster than the box module.
16:59:13 [fantasai_]: szilles: By making it an appendix, it makes it clearer that this is a separable piece that can/might be used elsewhere
16:59:32 [fantasai_]: arronei: Maybe add a note that this might be moved to e.g. future version of box module
16:59:45 [fantasai_]: RESOLVED: Add these keywords as an appendix, add note that they might be moved
17:00:11 [fantasai_]: szilles: Would like to give 1-week notice of request to publish WD of Regions.
17:00:19 [fantasai_]: szilles: Exclusions still needs more work.
17:00:29 [fantasai_]: szilles: hyatt posted some issues to www-style
17:00:31 [fantasai_]: plinss: OK
17:00:40 [fantasai_]: Meeting closed.
17:00:40 [Zakim]: -danielweck
17:00:42 [Zakim]: -[Microsoft]
17:00:42 [Zakim]: -smfr
17:00:43 [Zakim]: -arno
17:00:43 [Zakim]: -glazou
17:00:45 [Zakim]: -[Apple]
17:00:45 [Zakim]: -sylvaing
17:00:46 [Zakim]: -cesar
17:00:48 [Zakim]: -plinss
17:00:49 [Zakim]: -kojiishi
17:00:51 [Zakim]: -[Microsoft.a]
17:00:52 [cesar]: cesar has left #css
17:00:53 [Zakim]: - +1.415.920.aaee
17:00:55 [Zakim]: - +1.408.536.aaff
17:00:57 [Zakim]: -TabAtkins
17:00:59 [Zakim]: -Bert
17:01:03 [Zakim]: -bradk
17:01:04 [Zakim]: Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
17:01:05 [Zakim]: Attendees were plinss, +1.650.214.aaaa, TabAtkins, arronei, danielweck, +1.206.324.aabb, +1.408.536.aacc, arno, smfr, [Microsoft], kojiishi, johnjan, sylvaing, bradk, +050134aadd,
17:01:08 [Zakim]: ... +1.415.920.aaee, Cathy_Chan, +1.408.536.aaff, +34.92.38.aagg, Bert, glazou, cesar, hober
17:01:51 [smfr]: smfr has left #css
17:16:36 [arno]: arno has joined #css
17:43:57 [fantasai]: RRSAgent: pointer
17:43:57 [RRSAgent]: See http://www.w3.org/2011/05/11-css-irc#T17-43-57
17:44:00 [fantasai]: RRSAgent: make logs public
17:44:03 [fantasai]: RRSAgent: make minutes
17:44:03 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/05/11-css-minutes.html fantasai
18:05:07 [szilles]: szilles has joined #css
18:23:15 [fantasai]: why is there a thread called Spec Annotations that talks about gradients?
18:23:25 [fantasai]: @_@
18:31:52 [fantasai]: Bert: so, on the topic of the website, how would we go about updating the template for the blog?
18:31:56 [fantasai]: Bert: Is that something I can help with?
19:08:59 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #css
19:42:58 [Bert]: Fantasai, there may be nothing to do for the blog.
19:43:11 [Bert]: The blog is a "skin" in PHP.
19:43:33 [Bert]: I already added a link to the style sheet and it seems to work without any other changes.
19:44:44 [fantasai]: ?
19:44:54 [Bert]: Unless I discover errors, all I have to is remove the word "alternate"
19:45:57 [fantasai]: ...
19:46:05 [Bert]: Same for all other pages. I'm testing them, but the changes are getting less and less.
19:46:18 [fantasai]: Bert, that's not the right style sheet
19:46:25 [Bert]: I'm confident I can switch by the ebd of the month.
19:46:42 [fantasai]: Bert, that's not the right style sheet
19:46:46 [fantasai]: the right style sheet is this one http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/StyleSets/W3CPro/main.css
19:46:50 [Bert]: It's called "Main" in the list of styles.
19:46:57 [fantasai]: I know
19:47:15 [fantasai]: that's not the style sheet for the redesign
19:47:21 [fantasai]: Main links to a different style sheet
19:47:52 [Bert]: I mainly worked from the zip file.
19:48:03 [fantasai]: what zip file?
19:48:05 [fantasai]: Why?
19:48:10 [Bert]: Still have a frustrating bug with Opera.
19:48:14 [fantasai]: BERT!
19:48:17 [fantasai]: why did you use the zip file?
19:48:30 [fantasai]: why didn't you use the style we resolved on?
19:48:38 [fantasai]: why did you change things around so much for no reason??
19:48:39 [Bert]: The zip file and the one on dropbox
19:49:31 [fantasai]: I don't understand what you used
19:49:55 [fantasai]: This is the WG resolution:
19:49:58 [fantasai]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Apr/0429.html
19:50:12 [fantasai]: This is the design that was resolved on :http://csswg.inkedblade.net/staging/redesign/index-divya.html
19:50:50 [fantasai]: Why are you using anything other than what's there?
19:51:11 [fantasai]: I even put it on the W3C server for you!
19:51:14 [Bert]: The WG cannot decide on those pages, they aren't the WG's responsability.
19:51:17 [fantasai]: See, load the source, the links are to W3C
19:51:53 [fantasai]: Whose responsibility are they, then?
19:52:15 [Bert]: There were different colors on different browsers, so I had to choose.
19:52:38 [Bert]: The W3C Team, and in this case me, because I'm the Style Activity Lead.
19:54:07 [Bert]: The pages exist whether or not there are any WGs in that area.
19:55:06 [fantasai]: There were differnet colors on different browsers because they have differing levels of CSS support
19:55:09 [fantasai]: That's fine
19:55:13 [fantasai]: Nothing broke because of it
19:55:30 [fantasai]: It was designed to fall back gracefully
19:55:46 [Bert]: I also added an @media for very narrow windows, and used the background from http://dl.dropbox.com/u/952/csswg/csswg-onecol.html
20:00:31 [fantasai]: Bert, I've repeatedly asked you to explain what the problem is with the style sheet that you had to go change it
20:00:43 [fantasai]: so that we could work on it together
20:00:51 [fantasai]: and get something that we all agree looks as nice as the original design
20:01:03 [fantasai]: you haven't done that
20:01:15 [fantasai]: you just went and changed things around
20:01:58 [fantasai]: I still don't understand why you think there's a problem with Divya's design
20:02:03 [fantasai]: and why we can't just use it
20:03:07 [fantasai]: So I request that you post an explanation of why you took the approach you are taking
20:03:11 [fantasai]: which is to change the design
20:03:27 [fantasai]: without any consultation with either the WG or the original designer
20:03:50 [fantasai]: or me, who did a fair bit of technical cleanup on the design
20:04:40 [fantasai]: instead of taking the approach of explaining the problems you saw with the design
20:04:42 [Bert]: I was hoping Divya would spot the differences without me pointing them out, but so far she hasn't responded, at least not with any remarks about the design.
20:04:56 [fantasai]: and working with everyone to solve those problems
20:05:12 [Bert]: I can try to make list of the things I changed.
20:06:02 [fantasai]: That's not going to help me understand why you changed them
20:06:09 [fantasai]: me or the WG
20:06:27 [Bert]: Apart from the HTML background and the color of the shadows, they are just implementation details: using em where possible instead of px, not setting the font size, things like that.
20:07:37 [Bert]: Certain things where easy to make consistent in most browsers, other things I don't so much care about.
20:08:27 [fantasai]: Ok, fine, make an exhaustive list of changes
20:08:30 [fantasai]: /with/ explanations
20:08:41 [fantasai]: so that I can work it into the style sheets I uploaded to W3C
20:08:50 [fantasai]: because those are much easier to understand
20:08:58 [fantasai]: they have more comments
20:09:09 [fantasai]: they don't use hsl notation so they work in more browsers
20:09:15 [fantasai]: they have better indentation
20:09:16 [fantasai]: etc.
20:09:57 [fantasai]: I still don't understand why you didn't use those style sheets as the base for your work
20:10:04 [fantasai]: I really really don't
20:13:48 [fantasai]: Bert: Other than using em instead of px and not setting the font size, were there other *problems* with the style sheets?
20:14:49 [fantasai]: Bert: Because understanding /why/ you changed things is a lot more useful to me than understanding /what/ you changed.
20:34:27 [arno]: arno has joined #css
21:28:47 [arronei]: arronei has joined #CSS
21:39:24 [vhardy]: vhardy has joined #css
23:08:20 [homata]: homata has joined #CSS