IRC log of css on 2014-03-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:31:02 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #css
15:31:02 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/03/12-css-irc
15:31:07 [glazou]: Zakim, this will be Style
15:31:10 [Zakim]: ok, glazou; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 29 minutes
15:31:16 [glazou]: RRSAgent, make logs public
15:31:22 [glazou]: glazou has changed the topic to: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Mar/0225.html
15:31:53 [nvdbleek]: nvdbleek has joined #css
15:50:56 [astearns_]: glazou: extra agenda item - CR for shapes
15:51:17 [glazou]: hi Alan ; ok, please say it during my call for extra items
15:52:12 [dael]: dael has joined #css
15:53:22 [glazou]: we have enough time for all extras I think
15:55:20 [astearns_]: depending on how long the subgrid argument lasts :)
15:56:24 [Zakim]: Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
15:56:31 [Zakim]: +dael
15:56:39 [dael]: ScribeNick dael
15:57:18 [Zakim]: +??P6
15:57:22 [glazou]: Zakim, ??P6 is me
15:57:22 [Zakim]: +glazou; got it
15:57:52 [Zakim]: +Plh
15:57:57 [Zakim]: +glenn
15:57:58 [Zakim]: +Stearns
15:58:18 [Zakim]: +dauwhe
15:58:26 [smfr]: smfr has joined #css
15:59:49 [leif1]: leif1 has joined #css
16:00:05 [glazou]: Zakim, who is noisy?
16:00:16 [Zakim]: glazou, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: dael (4%)
16:00:19 [dbaron]: dbaron has joined #css
16:00:31 [koji]: koji has joined #css
16:00:43 [rhauck]: rhauck has joined #css
16:00:56 [Zakim]: +SGalineau
16:01:00 [Zakim]: +??P30
16:01:04 [Zakim]: +Bert
16:01:07 [leif1]: Zakim, I am ??P30
16:01:07 [Zakim]: +leif1; got it
16:01:10 [TabAtkins]: I'll be in momentarily. Very rushed today; I need to grab breakfast before I start.
16:01:19 [Zakim]: +[Koblenz]
16:01:24 [gregwhitworth]: gregwhitworth has joined #css
16:01:26 [rhauck]: Zakim, Koblenz is me
16:01:26 [Zakim]: +rhauck; got it
16:01:30 [SimonSapin]: my SIP client segfaults :/
16:01:44 [glazou]: SimonSapin, only means you have to debug it right away ;-)
16:02:03 [Zakim]: +hober
16:02:19 [Zakim]: +[Microsoft]
16:02:25 [glazou]: Zakim, who is noisy?
16:02:36 [Zakim]: glazou, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Bert (12%)
16:02:46 [Zakim]: +??P43
16:02:52 [gregwhitworth]: Zkim, Microsoft has me
16:03:02 [Zakim]: + +1.415.231.aaaa
16:03:09 [gregwhitworth]: Zakim, Microsoft has me
16:03:09 [Zakim]: +gregwhitworth; got it
16:03:21 [glazou]: Zakim, who is noisy?
16:03:36 [Zakim]: glazou, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Bert (30%)
16:03:37 [koji]: zakim, +1.415.231.aaaa is me
16:03:39 [Zakim]: +koji; got it
16:03:46 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
16:03:59 [Zakim]: -Bert
16:04:10 [SimonSapin]: Zakim, [IPcaller] might possibly be me
16:04:10 [Zakim]: I don't understand '[IPcaller] might possibly be me', SimonSapin
16:04:25 [glazou]: Zakim, [IPcaller] has SimonSapin
16:04:25 [Zakim]: +SimonSapin; got it
16:04:35 [Zakim]: +Bert
16:05:04 [dael]: glazou: Let's start
16:05:13 [dael]: glazou: Any extra items?
16:05:17 [Zakim]: -[IPcaller]
16:05:30 [dael]: astearns_: I'd liek to take shapes to CR
16:05:40 [dael]: SimonSapin: One more, fantasai asked for named spaces to be updated
16:05:46 [dael]: glazou: Okay.
16:05:55 [dael]: glazou: Is that all?
16:05:58 [hober]: s/named spaces/namespaces/
16:06:08 [dael]: ...: Since TabAtkins is part of almost all this, lets start with Shapes
16:06:13 [MaRakow]: MaRakow has joined #CSS
16:06:14 [dael]: ...: fantasai are you there?
16:06:17 [Bert]: s/SimonSapin/Bert/
16:06:20 [dael]: Topic: Shapes to CR
16:06:21 [lmclister]: lmclister has joined #css
16:06:36 [dael]: astearns_: I got some feedback from the WG and I changed an ex based on howcomes feedback
16:06:46 [Zakim]: +??P56
16:06:51 [dael]: ...: He hasn't responded, but that's all the feedback we've had so we should transition to CR
16:06:58 [dael]: glazou: I agree. Other opinions?
16:07:01 [ar]: ar has joined #css
16:07:05 [bkardell_]: bkardell_ has joined #css
16:07:13 [glazou]: Zakim, ??P56 is tantek
16:07:13 [Zakim]: +tantek; got it
16:07:22 [dael]: ??: I haven't read the feedback. I'm not sure if I'm confortable w/o review
16:07:39 [Zakim]: +fantasai
16:07:49 [dael]: astearns_: howcomes feedback was discussed on call last week with some resolutions. The only part actionable was something to stop using empty divs
16:08:03 [glazou]: s/??/leif
16:08:06 [dael]: ...: I made those changes and the rest the WG decided to postpose
16:08:11 [Zakim]: +BrianKardell
16:08:13 [Zakim]: +[Bloomberg]
16:08:17 [dael]: leif: So the feedback was addressed? In that case I'm fine.
16:08:42 [Zakim]: +[Microsoft.a]
16:08:46 [dael]: astearns_: Any other opinions on the CR transition?
16:08:54 [MaRakow]: Zakim, [Microsoft.a] is me
16:08:54 [Zakim]: +MaRakow; got it
16:09:09 [dael]: glazou: I guess we can resolve?
16:09:09 [Zakim]: +SteveZ
16:09:13 [Zakim]: + +1.281.305.aabb
16:09:14 [Dwight_Stegall]: Dwight_Stegall has joined #css
16:09:17 [dael]: RESOLVED: Take Shapes to CR
16:09:25 [TabAtkins]: Zakim, aabb is me
16:09:25 [Zakim]: +TabAtkins; got it
16:09:27 [dael]: glazou: Who will do the transition process? Bert?
16:09:29 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
16:09:30 [dael]: bert: I guess, yes.
16:09:38 [dael]: glazou: I'm available for the call.
16:09:41 [tantek]: tantek has joined #css
16:09:48 [SimonSapin]: Zakim, [IPcaller] has me
16:09:49 [Zakim]: +SimonSapin; got it
16:09:55 [dael]: ??: I think we have calls on Monday if we can move for that
16:10:00 [SteveZ]: SteveZ has joined #css
16:10:00 [dael]: glazou: I'm okay with that
16:10:08 [dael]: bert: I'll send the transistion request today
16:10:29 [dael]: Topic: Namespaces update
16:10:46 [Zakim]: +dbaron
16:10:48 [dael]: bert: I just wanted to know how we're going to approach it. It was brought up on the ML
16:10:56 [tantek]: zakim, who is on the phone?
16:10:56 [Zakim]: On the phone I see dael, glazou, Plh, glenn, Stearns, dauwhe, SGalineau, leif1, rhauck, hober, [Microsoft], ??P43, koji, Bert, tantek, fantasai, BrianKardell, [Bloomberg], MaRakow,
16:11:00 [Zakim]: ... SteveZ, TabAtkins, [IPcaller], dbaron
16:11:00 [Zakim]: [Microsoft] has gregwhitworth
16:11:00 [Zakim]: [IPcaller] has SimonSapin
16:11:08 [dael]: fantasai: We can do it on the call. Any obj to updated namedspaces?
16:11:25 [hober]: s/namedspaces/namespaces/
16:11:29 [dael]: glazou: I want to see the dev doc. Give me a second
16:11:45 [glenn]: q+
16:11:47 [Bert]: -> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-namespaces/#css-qnames Namespaces grammar rules
16:11:53 [dael]: glazou: There are a lot of issues. We extraced everything we needed to from the doc, right? Yes. So I have no obj.
16:12:03 [Zakim]: -fantasai
16:12:05 [glazou]: Zakim, ack glenn
16:12:06 [Zakim]: I see no one on the speaker queue
16:12:23 [dael]: glenn: I jsut wanter to verify that the changes don't affect conformance.
16:12:25 [dael]: ??: Correct
16:12:34 [SimonSapin]: s/??/SimonSapin/
16:12:38 [dael]: glenn: So there's no need for a process in other words?
16:12:45 [Zakim]: +[Bloomberg.a]
16:12:50 [dael]: SimonSapin: I think that's what fantasai was suggesting
16:12:51 [glenn]: s/process/PER process/
16:12:58 [dael]: glazou: We lost fantasai
16:12:59 [Bert]: (No need for a PER review, as far as I can see.)
16:13:11 [dael]: glazou: Any obj about updating the document?
16:13:18 [dael]: glazou: Okay. Bert?
16:13:33 [dael]: bert: Ok. If that's the conclusion I'll make sure it get published.
16:13:34 [SimonSapin]: (TabAtkins, that was me)
16:13:37 [nvdbleek]: nvdbleek has joined #css
16:13:43 [dael]: glazou: I hear to obj so I think there's concensious.
16:13:53 [dael]: glazou: TabAtkins are you on call?
16:13:57 [dael]: glazou: Not yet.
16:13:58 [fantasai]: Sorry, I lost connection
16:14:01 [fantasai]: trying to get back on
16:14:01 [TabAtkins]: I'm here, one sec
16:14:07 [TabAtkins]: dunno why you can't hear me
16:14:09 [TabAtkins]: let me re-call
16:14:15 [dael]: Topic: Writing modes: Rename extent/measure to block-size/inline-size?
16:14:21 [Zakim]: -TabAtkins
16:14:23 [glazou]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Feb/0822.html
16:14:28 [dael]: SimonSapin: There's 2 items.
16:14:37 [shepazu]: shepazu has joined #css
16:14:59 [Zakim]: +TabAtkins
16:15:23 [dael]: SimonSapin: We have in the spec extent is the height and measure is width
16:15:34 [dael]: ...: I get them wrong b/c it's hard to tell which is which
16:15:37 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller.a]
16:15:46 [dael]: ...: I prop we do inline-size and block-size
16:15:58 [dael]: glazou: I kinda like it.
16:16:06 [dael]: glazou: Other comments?
16:16:15 [sylvaing_]: SGTM
16:16:21 [astearns_]: fine by me
16:16:27 [dael]: ???: So your prop is inline-size and block-size?
16:16:36 [TabAtkins]: ARGH, still nobody can hear me
16:16:38 [dael]: ...: My only obj is that size usually is both width and height
16:16:39 [TabAtkins]: zakim, unmute me
16:16:39 [Zakim]: TabAtkins was not muted, TabAtkins
16:16:41 [TabAtkins]: Hrm.
16:16:42 [astearns_]: s/???/rossen/
16:16:47 [Zakim]: -TabAtkins
16:16:53 [Zakim]: +krit
16:16:53 [dael]: rossen: So using size is a bit misleading
16:17:03 [dael]: ...: I'd prefer to have one identifier for that.
16:17:04 [Bert]: (Box uses inline dimension and block dimension, inspired by XSL's {inline,block}-progression dimension.)
16:17:07 [TabAtkins]: We use "size" as a generic term for, well, sizes, all over the place.
16:17:11 [TabAtkins]: It's not exclusive to width/height.
16:17:20 [dael]: ...: If measure and breatdh doesn't work, I'm fine with finding better, but size isn't good.
16:17:20 [Zakim]: +TabAtkins
16:17:37 [dael]: SimonSapin: That was from the ML. I agreed that it could be inline dimenion, not just size
16:17:47 [dael]: rossen: How about length?
16:17:57 [dael]: SimonSapin: Inline-measure and block-measure would be good.
16:18:06 [fantasai]: We decided against length because of mixup with <length>
16:18:12 [SimonSapin]: s/SimonSapin/Rossen/
16:18:13 [dael]: TabAtkins: I tried to obj in chat. We use size all over as a generic word.
16:18:19 [SimonSapin]: (once)
16:18:20 [dael]: ...: It's not width/heigh specific.
16:18:22 [BradK]: BradK has joined #CSS
16:18:36 [dael]: SimonSapin: Generically I agree, but usually it's both.
16:18:41 [abinader]: abinader has joined #css
16:18:51 [Zakim]: -fantasai
16:18:56 [dael]: TabAtkins: Yes, but we use size for all kinds of things. It's not tied to a fragment width or height.
16:19:01 [SimonSapin]: s/SimonSapin/Rossen/
16:19:01 [glenn]: how about "length"
16:19:14 [dael]: Rossen: Again, I think we make mistakes, but why keep going with them?
16:19:22 [glenn]: or "dimension"
16:19:24 [SteveZ]: How about "block-extent" and "inline-extent"?
16:19:32 [dael]: TabAtkins: I don't think it's a mistake. I think it's good. I don't want to use measure and length isn't much longer.
16:19:40 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller.a]
16:19:47 [glenn]: don't like "size"
16:19:54 [dael]: glazou: I'm not sure that this is the best use of our time.
16:19:58 [dbaron]: I'm in favor of inline-size and block-size as well, though I'd also be fine with inline-X and block-X for some other X.
16:20:00 [tantek]: bikeshedding on the call FTW!
16:20:00 [dael]: ...: SimonSapin can you con't over e-mail?
16:20:05 [dael]: SimonSapin: Yes.
16:20:18 [dael]: ...: I think we agree block-something and inline-something, we just need something
16:20:21 [fantasai]: SteveZ, block-extent & inline-measure? :)
16:20:22 [SteveZ]: I like the "block-X" and "inline-X" terminology
16:20:23 [dael]: TabAtkins: Can we resolve that?
16:20:29 [dael]: glazou: I'm okay with that.
16:20:36 [dael]: rossen: What's the resolution for?
16:20:55 [dael]: TabAtkins: Rename measure and extent to inline-something and blocksomething with something TBA asap
16:21:00 [dael]: glazou: rossen, you okay?
16:21:12 [dael]: rossen: Mostly. I don't see the point of resolving without the something.
16:21:21 [dael]: ...: But if we need a sum resolutions, that's okay.
16:21:40 [dael]: RESOLVED: Rename measure and extent to inline-something and block-something with something TBA ASAP
16:22:00 [Zakim]: +??P5
16:22:03 [dael]: RESOLVED: Update namespaces spec
16:22:06 [tantek]: Zakim, ??P5 is tantek
16:22:06 [Zakim]: +tantek; got it
16:22:11 [dael]: Action bert to update namespaces spec
16:22:11 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-621 - Update namespaces spec [on Bert Bos - due 2014-03-19].
16:22:18 [dael]: Topic: Lists WD
16:22:18 [glazou]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2014JanMar/0216.html
16:22:22 [Zakim]: +BradK
16:22:27 [dael]: TabAtkins: The current list spec on TR is from 2011
16:22:40 [dael]: ...: It still has old counterstyles. I just want to update TR with current ED
16:22:57 [dael]: ...: I don't love it, but it's better then what's there now so I'd like to get rid of the obsolute one.
16:23:22 [dael]: fantasai: I think it's good to update even though the draft is shaky, but we should have notices on what's completely experemental and may have compat issues
16:23:31 [dael]: ...: So if we take a week to label, I'm happy to pub
16:23:41 [dael]: TabAtkins: We can spend time checking everything and doesn't disclaimers
16:23:54 [dael]: glazou: We agreed a while ago to have changes from previous versions.
16:24:02 [dael]: ...: There's only changes from CSS2.1
16:24:14 [dael]: fantasai: I think this is appropriate because this is so out of date.
16:24:21 [fantasai]: s/this/old version/
16:24:24 [dael]: glazou: I agree, but we need to say exactly hat you said.
16:24:30 [fantasai]: fantasai^: This is pretty much a rewrite
16:24:34 [dael]: ...: We're not the only ones to read the whole spec
16:24:54 [dael]: glazou: Tweek the edits and do the reviews and everything?
16:25:04 [dael]: fantasai: So we'll aim for next Thursday to pub?
16:25:15 [dael]: glazou: So is that a decision to pub today or revisit next week?
16:25:30 [dael]: TabAtkins: Unless anyone needs to review our changes, I'd like a resolution and we'll post when it's ready
16:25:33 [dael]: glazou: obj?
16:25:35 [arronei]: arronei has joined #css
16:25:43 [dael]: RESOLVED: Publish a new WD of Lists
16:25:52 [dael]: Topic: Shadow Styling
16:26:07 [Rossen_]: Rossen_ has joined #css
16:26:09 [dael]: TabAtkins: I'd like to discuss what's I've added as a resolution to what we've discussed.
16:26:25 [glazou]: more shadow dom
16:26:26 [dael]: ...: I agreed with fantasai that using a pseudo for the root is good, but shadow root was bad
16:26:44 [dael]: ...: Our comp. is that the shadow pseudo exists, but so does shadow deep and a shadow combinator.
16:26:52 [Zakim]: +[Microsoft.a]
16:26:55 [Zakim]: -??P43
16:27:06 [Rossen_]: zakim, microsoft has me
16:27:06 [Zakim]: +Rossen_; got it
16:27:15 [dael]: ...: Reason for shadow combinator is b/c we don't think we'll have the shadow pseudo soon b/c it's had to do pseudo and combinator.
16:27:27 [dael]: ...: I think dedundency allows a more reasonable timetable
16:27:41 [dael]: fantasai: I don't think redundency makes sense b/c there's going to ship
16:27:53 [dael]: TabAtkins: We can't want a year to ship. We can do a combiantor not a pseudo
16:28:04 [tantek]: "not going to wait a year" <-- is that an extension of the "ultimatum" ?
16:28:10 [dael]: fantasai: Rather then hacking CSS to have two things that do the same thing, hack your parser and put it there.
16:28:16 [dael]: TabAtkins: That's a bad solution
16:28:26 [dael]: fantasai: It doesn't make sense to say we want this, but we're doing this
16:28:40 [dael]: TabAtkins: Shadow combinator isn't bad b/c it does consistant with shadow-deep
16:28:51 [dael]: ...: Pseudo works witht he rest of CSS, but not here
16:29:01 [dael]: fantasai: Then we should do combinator. Both doesn't make sense.
16:29:14 [dael]: TabAtkins: I'm fine with doing just combinator. We don't lose power
16:29:17 [dael]: fantasai: Yes you do
16:29:23 [Zakim]: -Plh
16:29:23 [dael]: TabAtkins: That's what the top one is for
16:29:42 [fantasai]: s/top/:top/
16:29:45 [dael]: glazou: I feel we have to decide something under pressure due to TabAtkins's employeers demands. That's personal.
16:29:58 [dael]: ...: As a amember I don't care about that agenda. I want it right way.
16:30:11 [dael]: ...: I don't like the pressure and I don't like any of the prop solutions
16:30:26 [dael]: TabAtkins: I understand. I don't like this, but we need something in a reasoanable time frame
16:30:35 [dael]: ...: We have something that would work and something that wouldn't.
16:30:46 [dael]: ???: TabAtkins you could always prefix now and impl later.
16:30:52 [hober]: s/???/hober/
16:30:57 [dael]: TabAtkins: If we impl prefix it'll stick and we can't remove later.
16:31:09 [dael]: TabAtkins: If we do that, we should pick a name and assume that'll go in a spec later.
16:31:19 [dael]: hober: So is the combinator completely out of the question?
16:31:25 [hober]: s/hober/rossen/
16:31:36 [dael]: TabAtkins: I'm fine with just combinators. I added pseudo for fantasai but I'm fine with any solution in the draft
16:31:48 [dael]: TabAtkins: Pure combinators are fine with me, but I can be flexable
16:32:06 [dael]: glazou: So you're asking for the WG to agree to do something
16:32:21 [dael]: ...: I don't think we need more time on this discussion, I think we need to do an answer.
16:32:23 [bkardell_]: I think pure combinators seems like a better idea... we can always add pseudo element later. you can't add combinators later here, they are kinda the thing that we need
16:32:44 [dael]: glazou: Who agrees with TabAtkins? Let you publish this like the WG agrees with it.
16:32:56 [SimonSapin]: (glazou, your mike is saturating)
16:32:56 [dael]: glazou: You're asking for a combinator decision
16:33:09 [dael]: glazou: You want to WG to agree about the combinator
16:33:22 [Zakim]: -[Bloomberg]
16:33:23 [dael]: TabAtkins: We can do pure combinator or combinator and pseudo combination in the draft
16:33:31 [dael]: TabAtkins: But I want a decision.
16:33:36 [dael]: glazou: So who objects?
16:33:41 [dael]: fantasai: don't agree with athat
16:34:00 [dael]: fantasai: I don't agree with having two things that do the same thing with no better reason then Google wants to ship
16:34:00 [SteveZ]: I am unhappy with having a redundant feature
16:34:05 [dael]: TabAtkins: Are you okay with just comb.
16:34:28 [dael]: fantasai: I think combinator and :top solution is pretty messy.
16:34:34 [dael]: ...: I don't htink it's a good solution
16:34:45 [dael]: TabAtkins: Do you dislike enough to obj?
16:34:58 [dael]: fantasai: I do enough given that the reason is you want to ship
16:35:09 [fantasai]: s/reason/argument in the other direction/
16:35:11 [dbaron]: dbaron has joined #css
16:35:11 [dael]: ...: I agree with sylvaing
16:35:25 [dael]: glazou: There doesn't seem to be agreement and I'm not ready to agree to let this go.
16:35:44 [dael]: TabAtkins: Keep in mind this started in Sept. It didn't get much attention, but it's been there for a while
16:35:46 [bkardell_]: Can we take a straw poll on which choice has more disagreement? :)
16:36:20 [dael]: glazou: I was saying that the thing no one is paying attention to is false.
16:36:23 [Zakim]: -tantek
16:36:26 [dael]: TabAtkins: I can show the lack of e-mail
16:36:37 [dael]: glazou: THat's a lack of discussion, not the lack of attention.
16:36:50 [dael]: TabAtkins: So if someone reviewed and gave no feedback, that's normall a check
16:36:55 [dael]: glazou: That does happen all the time
16:37:05 [tantek]: it IS hard to tell silent consent from silent apathy.
16:37:08 [dael]: TabAtkins: It's hard to tell concent from not caring.
16:37:13 [dael]: ...: I'd like a resolution
16:37:21 [tantek]: oh looks like hober also disagrees
16:37:27 [dael]: glazou: So sylvaing, fantasai, and myself don't like to have a resolution right now.
16:37:35 [dael]: glazou: I'd like to hear from others. hober too.
16:37:38 [glenn]: -1
16:37:43 [dael]: ...: I'd like positive or negative, but I want more.
16:37:50 [Zakim]: +SteveZ.a
16:37:53 [dael]: rossen: I would actually prefer to have a solution as well
16:38:11 [hober]: I agree with sylvaing/fantasai/glazou
16:38:12 [dael]: ...: I'd prefer something not forced by time, but I don't htink we're too far from a conclusion.
16:38:24 [Zakim]: -SteveZ
16:38:25 [dael]: ...: Saying we have to ship isn't great, but it will get a decision sooner or later.
16:38:37 [dael]: ...: I'm for making progress and I htink the shipping thing can be premitted.
16:38:54 [dael]: glazou: We have 4 people that don't want to make a decision, so there isn't concensious. I'm sorry
16:39:11 [dael]: TabAtkins: Just be aware that time will force us to decide something and ship it so no decision is a decision
16:39:18 [dael]: glazou: So I can't care a a co-chair
16:39:30 [dael]: TabAtkins: We tried to do this publicly so everyone was aware.
16:39:44 [dael]: glazou: I'm here to make the decision of the WG and the WG opinion is to not decide now.
16:39:56 [dael]: ??: Can i ask a q of TabAtkins?
16:40:08 [dael]: ??: Could google get away without top pseudo class?
16:40:19 [SimonSapin]: s/??/tantek/
16:40:21 [dael]: TabAtkins: I think it's needed to content combinator, but I'm not 100% sure.
16:40:28 [dael]: ...: We could maybe get away without it
16:40:44 [tantek]: SimonSapin - no I am not speaking on the phone.
16:40:50 [dael]: Tantek: It seems like you need a combinator, it I was wondering if we could narrowdown and avoid controversy
16:40:56 [SimonSapin]: (oops, sorry)
16:40:57 [dbaron]: s/Tantek/??/
16:40:58 [tantek]: dael no that is not me
16:41:01 [dael]: fantasai: The idea of pseudo is you use it to avoid other combinators
16:41:09 [tantek]: who was speaking before fantasai?
16:41:16 [dael]: ...: so shadow combinator is the same ans the pseudo.
16:41:29 [dael]: ...: If youw ant the top combinator you avoid using the pseudo
16:41:35 [fantasai]: e.g. A /shadow/ B is equivalent to A::shadow B
16:41:43 [dael]: tantek: So the shadow deep wouldn't make sense as a pseudo.
16:41:46 [dael]: TabAtkins: Yes.
16:41:49 [fantasai]: and A /shadow/ B:top is equivalent to A::shadow > B
16:41:49 [astearns_]: /me can't be bkardell - he's not saying, "Brian thinks that..."
16:41:53 [tantek]: s/tantek/Brian
16:41:54 [glazou]: LOL
16:42:03 [bkardell_]: lol
16:42:11 [dael]: TabAtkins: Well, we can move on.
16:42:19 [dael]: Topic: :Changed pseudo-class
16:42:29 [dael]: TabAtkins: I can't pull up the thread b/c I don't have easy internet
16:42:33 [SimonSapin]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2014JanMar/0217.html
16:42:45 [dael]: ...: explination is he asked for a pseudo for anything touched by the user since the form was done.
16:42:46 [tantek]: yes we kind of need this
16:42:57 [SimonSapin]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Feb/0511.html , rather
16:42:58 [dael]: ...: It's not about validity, but if the value was changed.
16:42:58 [tantek]: because existing valid/invalid pseudos are crap for actual decent UX
16:43:02 [dael]: ...: Seemed reasonable
16:43:22 [dael]: ...: Usecase was to color anything touched when modifying data so you can see what's changed and you know what will change with submit button
16:43:38 [dael]: fantasai: Is this checking against initial state on DOm or if you change something twice?
16:43:44 [dael]: TabAtkins: I'd against the DOM.
16:43:52 [dael]: ...: Value vs default value
16:44:12 [dael]: dbaron: I think we want has the user touched it more than is tha value diff from default
16:44:22 [tantek]: dbaron++
16:44:28 [dael]: TabAtkins: Q is what would revoke the user touched it. I can see where there's a revert button to stop match change
16:44:38 [dael]: dbaron: I would think input reset should.
16:44:44 [dael]: TabAtkins: I think that clears things, but I'm not sure.
16:44:53 [dael]: dbaron: Did we agree to add UI invalid?
16:44:55 [dael]: TabAtkins: Yes
16:45:10 [dael]: dbaron: I htink this is less important then as the UI invalid is combined with invalid
16:45:10 [Zakim]: -tantek.a
16:45:29 [dael]: dbaron: I still tend to think we want something where user hasn't touched it.
16:45:38 [dael]: ...: Feedback would be good from those with use cases
16:45:47 [dael]: TabAtkins: I'd be happy to go into more detail with use cases.
16:45:53 [dael]: fantasai: We might want both
16:46:01 [dael]: TabAtkins: Possibly.
16:46:21 [dael]: TabAtkins: I'll gather more info and bring up later.
16:46:26 [dael]: Topic: <custom-ident>
16:46:31 [glazou]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2014JanMar/0218.html
16:46:41 [dael]: SimonSapin: We had the res last week
16:46:55 [dael]: ...: That also applied to css-wide keywords
16:47:07 [fantasai]: s/That/It wasn't clear whether that/
16:47:21 [dael]: SimonSapin: fantasai made the point that we have different words. Some names that would be a problem, you couldn't use them in other properties
16:47:22 [tantek]: tantek has joined #css
16:47:35 [dael]: ...: So maybe we should exclude CSS keywords on both sides
16:47:45 [TabAtkins]: Example: You jlicould maybe write "grid-template-rows: 5px (inherit) 10px", but you couldn't then write "grid-row-start: inherit;"
16:47:47 [dael]: SimonSapin: fantasai is that a good explination?
16:48:00 [dael]: TabAtkins: I can restate
16:48:05 [Zakim]: +??P0
16:48:18 [dael]: TabAtkins: So the resolution we wanted was that you only had to exclude keywords in same context as you
16:48:31 [dael]: ...: but global keywords, fantasai asked if we should always exclude
16:48:47 [tantek]: darn it - got hung up on again
16:49:02 [dael]: ...: Futhermore keywords that are limited in one prop but used in another if we should still rec./require that they would be invalid b/c they would be invalid in other context
16:49:22 [dael]: ...: IN the example you could use it there, but not in grid-row-start.
16:49:27 [tantek]: Zakim, ??P0 is tantek
16:49:27 [Zakim]: +tantek; got it
16:49:29 [tantek]: (I think)
16:49:30 [Zakim]: -BrianKardell
16:49:33 [dbaron]: It seems good to have the same invalidity rules for grid template line names in all contexts.
16:49:44 [dael]: ...: Should we say that's disallowed, or in some places you can define against a set of disallowed, even if it's invalid in a different place
16:49:52 [dael]: dbaron: I htink same rules everywhere is better
16:50:04 [dael]: TabAtkins: The ppotential issues is that invalidates a lot.
16:50:09 [tantek]: zakim, mute tantek
16:50:09 [Zakim]: tantek should now be muted
16:50:18 [dael]: ...: for ex counterstyles has a lot so you have to exclude, for ex none.
16:50:35 [dael]: ...: There's another half dozen in there, should they all be exlcuded as counter style names?
16:50:45 [dael]: fantasai: Maybe short hand vs long hand, though that changes over time
16:50:59 [dael]: ...: What's clear is excluding global words would be better.
16:51:08 [dael]: TabAtkins: Yes, so anyting in top level excludes.
16:51:29 [dael]: stevezilles: It's easuer to exclude all of them. There aren't that many and it's easuer to remember to exclude them all
16:51:31 [fantasai]: s/in there/in list-style shorthand/
16:51:33 [dael]: TabAtkins: I'm not sure, though.
16:51:49 [dael]: ...: When someonet imes to make a counter style name outside and it doesn't work, is that confusing?
16:51:53 [dael]: ...: I'm not certain
16:51:55 [fantasai]: s/name/named/
16:52:13 [dael]: stevezilles: Alt. is ther person making it not sure it's valid or not sure it's invalid?
16:52:26 [dbaron]: I'm fine with the shorthand/longhand distinction.
16:52:37 [dael]: ...: The nice thing about a simple rules is even if it's obnoxious, it's easy to aplly b/c you don't need context.
16:52:54 [dael]: ...: That's why I advocate for it. There's times when people don't know how to use something because it's context based
16:53:03 [dael]: TabAtkins: That makse sense, but what's simpier?
16:53:16 [glazou]: s/concensious/consensus
16:53:33 [dael]: TabAtkins: At this point we're talking spec author. Maybe we can resolve that we disallow global and recommend authors disallow any problem valuse
16:53:54 [nvdbleek3]: nvdbleek3 has joined #css
16:54:00 [dael]: fantasai: It's a little bit looser, but it allows if you have a value with a req keyword and a custom-ident, that clearly makes its own linkspace
16:54:10 [dael]: ...: It won't conflict so there's no need to exclude.
16:54:22 [dael]: ...: So I guess I'm going with more nuanced context.
16:54:30 [fantasai]: s/context/"context"/
16:54:41 [dael]: TabAtkins: Only reason I'm not happy it doesn't have any defaul allowances.
16:54:41 [lmclister]: lmclister has joined #css
16:55:00 [dael]: ...: It allows you to spec any custom-ident, I'd prefer a list of default and allow custom
16:55:12 [dael]: fantasai: I think the idea was a general rule, but each spec explains in a more specific way
16:55:27 [dael]: ...: b/c the rule a a little subjec to misinterpretation or eq. thinking.
16:55:39 [dael]: ...: But if you could tell in this context, this is excluded.
16:55:39 [tantek]: btw, re: :changed, I noted (1) that making it user-action sensitive is more useful (per the usecases), and (2) concern that :changed would/might mean something different that the ONCHANGE event. Said this on the phone but got disconnected.
16:55:55 [dael]: TabAtkins: I'm aiming for easier spec maintentence. I don't want to req spec authoers to include.
16:56:02 [dael]: ...: People will forget and it'll be missed
16:56:11 [dael]: fantasai: Both these versions have a defaul rule.
16:56:22 [dael]: ...: If you give the authors an easy expliantion, that's btter.
16:56:36 [antonp]: antonp has joined #css
16:56:37 [dael]: fantasai: My rule is about parsing.
16:56:41 [dael]: glazou: We should wrap up
16:56:51 [dael]: TabAtkins: I'm happy with parsing ambiguity.
16:56:51 [fantasai]: an identifier that could be interpreted as a pre-defined keyword in any position or multiplication of the <custom-ident> component value is excluded, and is invalid as a <custom-ident> matching to that component value even in positions where its use would be technically unambiguous. For example, if a keyword could be misparsed when specified as the first item of a ''<custom-ident>+'' list, it is invalid when specified in any position in that list.
16:56:57 [dael]: dbaron: Which one?
16:57:08 [dael]: TabAtkins: I don't recall, I was remember last week minutes
16:57:20 [dael]: see above
16:57:34 [lmclister]: lmclister has joined #css
16:57:47 [dael]: fantasai: I'm happy with clearer wording, but I thnk that's a good rule
16:57:56 [dael]: TabAtkins: It's possible that needs a short hand explination
16:58:05 [fantasai]: s/TabAtkins/dbaron/
16:58:11 [fantasai]: s/explination/exception/
16:58:23 [dael]: fantasai: Let's do this on the list as a thread, I have to go
16:58:39 [fantasai]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Mar/0127.html
16:58:43 [Zakim]: -[IPcaller.a]
16:58:45 [dael]: glazou: So I guess this is it for the day. We had one item left, subgrid, but no time to discuss
16:58:51 [Zakim]: -dbaron
16:58:53 [Zakim]: -SGalineau
16:58:54 [Zakim]: -rhauck
16:58:54 [Zakim]: -[Microsoft]
16:58:55 [dael]: glazou: Thank you everyone, talk to you next week.
16:58:56 [Zakim]: -[Microsoft.a]
16:58:56 [Zakim]: -glazou
16:58:57 [Zakim]: -BradK
16:58:57 [Zakim]: -TabAtkins
16:58:57 [Zakim]: -hober
16:58:59 [Zakim]: -dauwhe
16:58:59 [Zakim]: -MaRakow
16:58:59 [Zakim]: -[IPcaller]
16:59:00 [Zakim]: -Stearns
16:59:01 [Zakim]: -glenn
16:59:01 [Zakim]: -dael
16:59:02 [Zakim]: -tantek
16:59:04 [rhauck]: rhauck has left #css
16:59:04 [Zakim]: -Bert
16:59:50 [Zakim]: -koji
17:00:08 [glazou]: leif1, don't tempt hober
17:00:14 [astearns_]: hehe
17:00:17 [rhauck]: rhauck has joined #css
17:00:20 [Zakim]: -SteveZ.a
17:00:30 [smfr]: smfr has left #css
17:00:58 [krit]: fantasai: Just a friendly reminder to look at the open issues http://dev.w3.org/fxtf/css-masking-1/issues-lc-2013.html for masking http://www.w3.org/TR/css-masking-1/ :) .... this is not the version with mask-composite and multiple layers
17:03:10 [ChrisL]: ChrisL has joined #css
17:03:31 [ChrisL]: rrsagent, here
17:03:31 [RRSAgent]: See http://www.w3.org/2014/03/12-css-irc#T17-03-31
17:06:00 [lmclister]: lmclister has joined #css
17:06:24 [tantek]: ChrisL - blame DST
17:10:22 [BradK]: BradK has left #css
17:12:50 [rhauck]: rhauck has joined #css
17:14:43 [Zakim]: -leif1
17:29:53 [Zakim]: -krit
17:34:53 [Zakim]: disconnecting the lone participant, [Bloomberg.a], in Style_CSS FP()12:00PM
17:34:56 [Zakim]: Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
17:34:56 [Zakim]: Attendees were dael, glazou, Plh, glenn, Stearns, dauwhe, SGalineau, Bert, leif1, rhauck, hober, gregwhitworth, koji, SimonSapin, tantek, fantasai, BrianKardell, [Bloomberg],
17:34:57 [Zakim]: ... [Microsoft], MaRakow, SteveZ, +1.281.305.aabb, TabAtkins, dbaron, [IPcaller], krit, BradK, Rossen_
17:46:34 [dauwhe_]: dauwhe_ has joined #css
17:51:39 [tantek]: ok, because there are reasonable nerds in here that have opinions about webarch - who can give reasons to call things URIs instead of URLs?
17:51:57 [tantek]: I tried to rationalize it yesterday and failed. About to give up but thought I'd ask first.
17:53:30 [TabAtkins]: There is no reason. URI is an unfamiliar term, and the distinctions are silly and shouldn't be born by the top-levle name.
17:53:53 [astearns_]: because you can pretend you were just using a bad font with an uppercase 'i' that looks the same as the uppercase 'l'?
17:54:36 [tantek]: TabAtkins - you're not helping. ;)
17:54:50 [TabAtkins]: tantek: Sure I am - I'm encouraging you to give up. ^_^
17:55:06 [tantek]: heh. And don't even get me started on IRI
17:55:17 [tantek]: too bad they didn't go with IRL
17:58:54 [dauwhe]: dauwhe has joined #css
17:59:21 [Dwight_Stegall]: Dwight_Stegall has joined #css
18:00:46 [Bert]: Things can de identified by their location ("10, main st"; or "protocol:server/path"), but that is not the only possibility. You also identify things by name ("Tantek," "urn:," "tel:") or by their content ("ni:hash," Freenet URIs, magnet URIs). So URI is a better name than URL.
18:01:54 [Bert]: But I assume that that's too obvious. You're referring to something else, maybe?
18:02:38 [TabAtkins]: Bert: That's just their location in name-space. ^_^
18:03:12 [tantek]: TabAtkins - I disagree. A name is a thing vs. a location is where you go get a thing.
18:03:34 [tantek]: That being said, "tel:" in practice is not a name
18:03:34 [TabAtkins]: I was tongue-in-cheek.
18:03:42 [tantek]: it's an action
18:03:47 [tantek]: "try to dial this phone number"
18:03:51 [tantek]: as implemented
18:04:26 [tantek]: Bert, I no longer believe in URNs - they are mythical / theoretical and never used on the web
18:04:44 [tantek]: i.e. I challenge you to provide an example of a URN that a browser implements - where typing it into the address bar does something
18:05:02 [tantek]: does something "name-like" I should say
18:05:21 [tantek]: as opposed to does something scheme-primarily specific, e.g. like tel: = start a phone cal
18:05:25 [tantek]: *call
18:05:46 [Bert]: Dialling is only one possible action. Another action is comparing it to another number to see if they are the same. And yet another action is communicating the number to somebody who needs it.
18:06:09 [tantek]: Bert - dialing is not just "one possible action" - it's what's interoperably implemented.
18:07:11 [Bert]: Telephone numbers are indeed a bit of a mix between location and name: within a country (at least here in Europe) they are location-independent, but they still have a country prefix...
18:08:09 [tantek]: similarly, "mailto:" means the action of "open a new message to ..."
18:08:54 [Bert]: geo: is another interesting case: it defines a location, but no protocol to get there. :-)
18:09:22 [tantek]: which is perhaps navigation of another sort
18:18:14 [tantek]: the canonical examples of URNs, e.g. isbn:, don't actually do anything in browsers, nor does anyone use them (in non-theoretical-examples) on the web.
18:25:29 [Bert]: Why do you insist on browsers? I'm currently writing an RFC and one of the tools the IETF provide to help with that turns ISBN URIs into XML with bibliographic data, ready to be included in a references section. That's not a browser, but it *is* a Web client.
18:25:32 [tantek]: what I discovered from some of this research is that schemes for things other than locations, tend to be used to launch other applications.
18:26:18 [tantek]: Bert - what about that tool makes it a *Web* client? How is it not just a text processor? What is "webby" about it?
18:27:43 [dauwhe]: dauwhe has joined #css
18:28:55 [leif2]: leif2 has joined #css
18:31:15 [Bert]: It doesn't have any data itself, but it knows how to find what it needs online and process it into the form the user wants.
18:39:01 [plh]: plh has joined #css
19:13:25 [leif1]: leif1 has joined #css
19:16:38 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #css
19:33:31 [Ms2ger]: Ms2ger has joined #css
19:49:33 [leif1]: leif1 has left #css
19:59:41 [glenn]: glenn has joined #css
20:05:09 [rhauck]: rhauck has joined #css
20:37:32 [glenn]: glenn has joined #css
21:01:36 [rhauck1]: rhauck1 has joined #css
21:54:20 [shans__]: shans__ has joined #css
23:07:22 [dauwhe_]: dauwhe_ has joined #css
23:12:16 [SimonSapin]: grid-template parsing. Such ambiguity. So look-ahead.
23:40:44 [jcraig]: jcraig has joined #css
23:42:34 [jcraig]: jcraig has left #css
23:44:11 [jcraig]: jcraig has joined #css
23:45:59 [rhauck]: rhauck has joined #css