15:55:57 RRSAgent has joined #css 15:55:57 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/03/22-css-irc 15:55:59 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:55:59 Zakim has joined #css 15:56:01 Zakim, this will be Style_CSS FP 15:56:01 ok, trackbot 15:56:02 Meeting: Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Working Group Teleconference 15:56:02 Date: 22 March 2017 15:57:26 Guest87 has joined #css 15:58:50 Present+ 15:59:05 dael has joined #css 15:59:07 present+ 15:59:36 present+ 15:59:38 present+ dael 15:59:39 present+ 15:59:41 ScribeNick: dael 15:59:54 present+ 16:00:03 MaRakow has joined #CSS 16:00:14 alex_antennahouse has joined #css 16:00:32 present+ 16:00:40 present+ 16:00:42 present+ bdc 16:01:10 present+ 16:01:15 present+ 16:01:23 Vlad has joined #css 16:01:25 present+ 16:01:31 bcampbell has joined #css 16:01:38 present+ 16:01:47 astearns: We'll give one more minute for people to join. 16:01:47 present+ 16:01:54 present+ 16:02:13 Having an 8am Tuesday meeting makes it easier to be on time for a 9am Wednesday meeting. :-) 16:02:18 present+ 16:02:36 myles has joined #css 16:02:40 present+ myles 16:02:57 smfr has joined #css 16:02:57 present+ 16:02:58 ChrisL: do i have the necessary permissions to review tests? 16:03:04 astearns: Let's get going 16:03:13 astearns: Is there anything anyone would like to add to the agenda? 16:03:19 astearns: Publication of Paint as FPWD? 16:03:24 present+ 16:03:37 myles, in the old system yes you just add a lne to each test saying you reviewed it. i can put them into the csswg-tests repo for review 16:03:38 astearns: I'll add the publication as the item after rec steps. Thanks fantasai 16:03:50 Topic: REC spec steps tête-à-tête 16:03:58 ChrisL: i've never done it before, but if you let me know how, i'd be happy to do it 16:04:08 astearns: We had a bunch of chatter on public & private lists for some including fonts and variables. 16:04:09 myles, sure, happy to 16:04:15 astearns: There are a few blanks we need to add in. 16:04:23 astearns: So does anyone know next steps for cascade 3? 16:04:35 testsuite was what we discussed last right? 16:04:42 astearns, cascade 3 needs an edit to drop scoped styles and it needs a testsuite 16:04:53 astearns: [reads gregwhitworth & fantasai ] 16:05:06 present+ 16:05:17 astearns: I'll put that as next steps that we'll have those edits to reduce scope. Who is going to work on test suite? 16:05:19 astearns, tests exist, but perhaps not in the right format, e.g. IIRC dbaron said Mozilla's tests are in mochitest format 16:05:24 reducing the scope, eh? 16:05:51 tantek: We reviewed last time. We have extensive tests we can provide, but need to port. There is one thing in cascade we don't support 16:05:56 s/tantek/greg 16:06:00 astearns: Is that on you? 16:06:03 what's unsupported? 16:06:05 gregwhitworth: Yeah. Sure. 16:06:11 astearns: [reads fantasai ] 16:06:14 stryx` has joined #css 16:06:19 astearns: Can we get a volunteer to convert those? 16:06:37 astearns: Lacking a volunteer we'll find someone. WE have three next steps. 16:06:51 astearns: Conditional rules. What's the next step? 16:06:57 astearns, Conditional Rules needs republication 16:07:05 dbaron: I suspect needing tests is at least a big piece. 16:07:13 dbaron: I haven't looked a tthe state of the suite. 16:07:18 astearns, it's taken some edits. Has outstanding resolution to publish 16:07:21 astearns: [reads fantasai] 16:07:28 astearns: fantasai, what needs to be changed? 16:07:32 astearns, yeah, on the call, can't speak atm, dbaron should have updates 16:07:53 dbaron: I have another thing. The OM stuff needs work. They have competing models and we really need some pieces of one and some of the other. 16:08:06 astearns: So outstanding edits, can I add you dbaron as the person to review and edit? 16:08:14 dbaron: Me and zcorpan prob. 16:08:38 dbaron: It might come down to deleting stuff from conditional rules because OM is in a beter state. WE also need to figure out which spec should have it. 16:08:48 astearns: What about test suite? Do we have tests in various engines? 16:09:04 dbaron: I'm sure Gecko has some, I don't know what format or amount of conversion. 16:09:13 astearns: Can you find someone to make that assesment? 16:09:21 present+ antonp 16:09:28 dbaron: I could eventually. I'm at a state where I can't promise anything before next F2F 16:09:32 daekim has joined #css 16:09:42 astearns: That's fair. It's good to have that there are test to convert, even without a person. 16:09:47 astearns: [reads gregwhitworth] 16:09:56 astearns: On to V&U. What needs to be done there? 16:10:05 astearns, needs republication after edits 16:10:10 astearns: Who should know? 16:10:11 astearns, also needs a test suite compiled 16:10:17 astearns: [reads fantasai] 16:10:17 edits are done; needs review 16:10:24 fremy has joined #css 16:10:27 Rossen_: Which edits? 16:10:28 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2017Mar/0054.html 16:10:34 astearns: [reads fantasai ] 16:10:51 astearns: Looks like we need the edits on the agenda and then replublish. I'll put that on me to add to the agenda next week. 16:10:55 astearns, see link above for edits & commentary on said edits 16:10:55 tmichel has joined #css 16:11:23 astearns: Backgrounds & borders has had test suite work. It owuld be great to have someone review the state of the test suite and see if recent edits have been good. 16:11:30 astearns: Who can take a look at the B&B tests? 16:11:38 bradk has joined #css 16:12:04 spec needs republication as well; a handful of edits 16:12:06 Rossen_: Have there been changes recently? It seems the spec has been stable for quite some time. 16:12:10 but nothing significant 16:12:23 present+ 16:12:24 Rossen_: It seems to have fallen off the radar. THere's quite a bit of interop and we need to button up the test suite. 16:12:27 https://drafts.csswg.org/css-backgrounds-3/#changes 16:12:32 Rossen_: I see fantasai points out there's a handful of edits. 16:12:40 present+ 16:12:47 They're not editorial, but they're WG-resolved. 16:12:49 present+ 16:12:51 Mozilla has a lot of B&B tests, some of which may have been contributed to the WG before the WG accepted reftests... and thus might need to be re-contributed... 16:12:56 Rossen_: I'm assuming they're mostly editorial and I'm curious to know if we need any kind of resolution or if they're the result of resolutions. 16:13:04 but again, see message wrt 16:13:09 astearns: [reads fantasai ] 16:13:12 Rossen_: Okay. 16:13:26 Rossen_: In that case is those are shovel ready we just need to make it happen and republish. 16:13:34 astearns: That and get someone to review test suite. 16:13:36 Rossen_: Right. 16:14:05 Rossen_: I thinkt he test suite is on everyone. I would be surprised if there's an impl on call that doesn't use testing as part of their practice. Those are the tests we want. 16:14:30 astearns: But assigning evaluation to everyone doesn't get us anywhere. Getting one person to evaluate and put a report together if we're ready is good. 16:14:35 Rossen_: Right. I mis-understood. 16:14:59 present+ 16:15:07 astearns: From IRC there's additional tests for Mozilla. WE need more test review in this process b/c each spec needs review of if the test suite is in a good state. 16:15:16 Rossen_: I see bradk Bert and fantasai as editors. 16:15:30 Rossen_: bradk or Bert is this something you can take as an action? 16:15:49 tmichel: A few months ago I worked on the test suite and tried to eval coverage. 16:16:10 tmichel: My opinion is that most of the features are covered but today we have about 80% of the tests passing 2 impl. 16:16:23 tmichel: The impl work is pending. It's improved a lot in a year. 16:16:37 astearns: tmichel can you put together an impl report to show what's not passing? 16:16:41 tmichel: Yeah, I can do that. 16:16:44 astearns: Thank you. 16:16:49 present+ 16:17:01 tmichel: Are you interested in only the ones that are not two, or are you interested in only one? 16:17:07 astearns: All tests with NOT 2. 16:17:14 tmichel: Thank you 16:17:31 astearns: Transforms. What is the next step? There were a bunch of issues resolved in seattle 16:17:40 present+ 16:17:58 smfr: There's 27 open issues. A fair portion need SVG work. We'll have to go through those with SVG representation. I don't know what that will be. 16:18:09 Rossen_: We have a large bit os SVG representation. 16:19:00 fantasai: I think we should make an explicit effort to pull in the former SVG WG people that aren't here and get them involved. We need to corrdinate a specific SVG meeting or telecon. Maybe we can slot it into the old SVG timeslot. We won't be able to get them all to the F2F. We could prob to a telecon 16:19:04 Rossen_: I like that idea. 16:19:24 Rossen_: I think sending an e-mail to the SVG ML to get things going would be great. We'll see if we can re-use the SVG telecon. 16:19:34 Rossen_: smfr out of the 25 how many need SVG? All? 16:19:39 smfr: Maybe 12 or 15-ish? 16:19:44 Rossen_: About hlaf 16:19:53 fantasai: Paint has a bunch of issues that need SVG too. 16:20:04 Rossen_: That's fine. Sounds great. Let's reach out and go from there. 16:20:37 Rossen_: We didn't cover...do we have any test suite for transforms L1? If not can we get that moving? 16:20:57 smfr: I think we have some contributed, but I don't believe they've been brought together for review. I don't have bandwidth for that. 16:21:12 Rossen_: So you'll need help evaluating what's there and do another round of calls for tests. 16:21:23 gsnedders: From memory there were problems with references not matching. 16:21:28 Rossen_: Okay. 16:21:45 Rossen_: gsnedders is this something you can run through and see if there are any good tests and next week we can discuss? 16:21:59 astearns: gsnedders needs to finish the web-platform-tests transation first. 16:22:02 Rossen_: fair enough. 16:22:11 gsnedders: plan is to do it on Tuesday 16:22:24 gregwhitworth: Will we be working out of wpt at that point? 16:22:27 gsnedders: Yes. 16:22:32 gregwhitworth: Okay, cool. 16:22:53 astearns: Next is flexbox. It looks like someone recently reviewed, but no one can remember where that eval went. Did that happen? 16:23:02 astearns: And is that the next step? 16:23:26 fantasai: It needs republication. There's a couple of open issues. WE do need the test suite compiled and evaluated. All these need to happen. 16:23:26 smfr has left #css 16:23:43 astearns: A couple of the flex issues are on agenda. Is there anyone that can vlunteer for test suite? 16:24:12 https://wiki.csswg.org/test ? 16:24:13 skk: There's no website. If there's a website it's easier for me to announce that in Japan. 16:24:22 dbaron: and http://web-platform-test.org/ 16:24:32 astearns: Let me talk to you off the call for what would help with requiting QA people in Japan. 16:24:45 s/requiting/recruiting/ 16:24:45 astearns: We still need a volunteer. 16:25:09 gregwhitworth: I can do both the list dive and the review. I can see what we have and what we have internally. 16:25:23 gsnedders: I've also spoken with people at looking in the next months. 16:25:33 astearns: Depending on gregwhitworth timing perhaps you two can colab 16:25:33 s/months/month/ 16:25:35 skk, astearns, feel free to loop me in; gsnedders might be helpful, too, he knows where existing docs are :) 16:25:46 astearns: Next is UI. I believe next step is review test suite from florian 16:25:51 someone other than the editors preferably :) 16:26:06 astearns: THis is smaller, this is just getting florian's submissions into the suite. And tantek mentioned it should be a non-editor 16:26:11 astearns: fantasai are you and editor? 16:26:13 fantasai: nope 16:26:20 astearns: Can I assign the review to you? 16:26:25 fantasai: Um...I guess. 16:26:38 fantasai: My current priority is to get grid, flexbox, and display:all published. 16:26:45 I'm sensing that fantasai is already quite overloaded, would help to get another volunteer! 16:26:49 astearns: I'm hoping this is a small task. It's reviewing florian's work. 16:27:10 also this feels like something that a new-ish person could review 16:27:12 gsnedders: In a general sense I'd like us to land as many open pull requests as possible in the next week as pulling them over in manual work. 16:27:20 tantek... Mostly disorganized, I think. Oh, and I have to finish accounting by April 15th... 16:27:25 so if there's a new WG member that wants to try an "easy" review task, this would be a great one to do! 16:27:30 I can try tomorrow, I guess. 16:27:31 astearns: That is true. And I doubt fantasai will get to it in that time. It would be great to have another volunteer. 16:27:39 we have a few new WG members right? 16:27:47 [silence] 16:27:54 fantasai: I'll give it a try tomorrow. 16:28:09 astearns: Once you do look fantasai see if there's anything you and I can split up. I'll volunteer. 16:28:17 s/www-style/w3c-css-wg/ ? :) 16:28:23 yes that :) 16:28:33 gsnedders: I was planning on looking at the 2.2 test label in the next few days because they have silly amounts of comments and I don't want to move them over. 16:28:49 https://github.com/w3c/csswg-test/pull/1139 16:28:55 astearns: So as you look at 2.1 tests if there's anything you can throw to me I'll try and help. 16:28:56 s/test label/tests/ 16:29:01 (I'm also happy to have a look, although I'm not entirely sure yet how all of this works) 16:29:19 bdc: http://web-platform-tests.org/reviewing-tests/index.html :) 16:29:24 astearns: So that's everything. We have next steps for all specs on the list. I'll send a summary to the private list. We'll try to make this quicker and easier as we go. 16:29:35 Topic: Publication of Paint as FPWD 16:29:40 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2017Mar/0059.html 16:30:10 fantasai: TabAtkins and I think we're ready. WE merged in heycam's paint spec. WE finished last week. There's a ton of issues, but I think it's ready for FPWD. 16:30:18 astearns: Anyone have anything to add? 16:30:26 Rossen_: Did anyone besides the editors review? 16:31:02 I can take a look at Paint. 16:31:06 fantasai: Amelia sent a bunch. Someone else sent some changes. WE should look at that as an issue, but it shouldn't hold up FPWD. It was mostly syntax adjustment 16:31:07 +1 to fpwd 16:31:30 fantasai: We did go over it in detail in I believe Sydney F2F so the design of features has been discussed with WG 16:31:32 Rossen_: Thanks 16:31:40 astearns: Obj to FPWD for Paint? 16:31:43 ship it! 16:31:50 RESOLVED: Publish FPWD for CSS Paint 16:31:52 rrsagent, here 16:31:52 See http://www.w3.org/2017/03/22-css-irc#T16-31-52 16:32:00 fantasai: Can we get short name approval? 16:32:07 astearns: Are we going with paint? 16:32:20 yes Plh is still the right person 16:32:22 shortname approval is part of the fpwd transition request 16:32:23 fantasai: Yeah. Someone, used to be plh, has to officially notify the webmaster it's okay. 16:32:53 astearns: plh is still right according to tmichel and ChrisL said we put the short name as part of the request. obj to paint as the short name? 16:32:57 fantasai, yes, it is part of the transition request for FPWD 16:33:00 RESOLVED: short name is paint. 16:33:10 Rossen_: And the name will be ... ? 16:33:18 dbaron: Is short name css-paint or paint? 16:33:33 fantasai: Just paint. That's the naming convention of fxtf. 16:33:39 dbaron: It's a broad short name. 16:33:48 fantasai: It's fill and stroke properties from svg 16:33:50 ok I will do the transition request 16:33:52 dbaron: Okay...I guess. 16:33:55 I thought Houdini had a Paint also 16:33:59 hmm 16:34:01 fantasai: I'll take alternatives. I jsut don't have one. 16:34:01 paint api 16:34:05 Rossen_: fxtx-paint? 16:34:11 this will be confusing 16:34:20 dbaron: Let's not put fxtf in the name of a spec when it may be about to disappear. 16:34:23 tantek no, one is called an api 16:34:27 +1 on what dbaron said 16:34:28 Rossen_: Yes, but I strongly agree paint is broad. 16:34:32 lol ChrisL thanks :P 16:34:35 dbaron: Paint is fine. Let's stick with it. 16:34:53 fantasai: If there are better ideas let us know and we'll prepare the publication next week. Post the better idea to the ML. 16:34:56 except that our "paint" and "paint-api" have nothing to do with each other :P 16:35:02 Rossen_: Module is fill and stroke? 16:35:20 fantasai: Yes. That's clearer and easier for people. But as a short name 'fill and stroke' is a bit long. 16:35:21 why not "fill-stroke" then :P 16:35:52 tantek: I'm a little concerned about confusion with houdini's paint. If this has something to do with houdini's we shouldn't have short names that make it seem that way 16:35:57 (good point, tantek) 16:35:59 Rossen_: fill-stroke seems pretty good. 16:36:08 astearns: Yep. Any concerns on fill-stroke? 16:36:22 fantasai: My only concern is if that ends up too specific. I'm not 100% sure 16:36:38 astearns: More specific is prob better thna too general 16:36:41 fantasai: true 16:36:43 +1 16:36:48 astearns: Obj to short name of fill-stroke? 16:36:59 s/this has something/this does not have something 16:37:07 RESOLVED: short name is fill-stroke with a title of Fill and Stroke 16:37:21 Topic: Absolute Positioned Elements in Flex Containers Removes Common Layout Patterns 16:37:25 TimeI will request this short name to plh 16:37:32 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2017Mar/0067.html 16:37:46 https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/401 16:38:13 stryx` has joined #css 16:38:21 fantasai: WE got an issue where somebody is complaining about achange we made. In an earlier draft we have a behavior that static pos is where it would have been if it was in flow. The major problem with that is impl were making it take space when you were using space around or other alignment prop 16:38:51 fantasai: THat kind of violates the idea that abspos things shouldn't effect flow layout. THere was lots of suggestions and discussion and we ended up with the current spec 16:38:58 what do implementations do today? 16:39:02 myles has joined #css 16:39:18 fantasai: THis broke some use cases. THis was a library with vertical deviders and they did it with abspos and they couldn't do that anymore. 16:39:21 I'm skeptical that we can just go change behavior for this stuff at this point 16:39:51 fantasai: They filed an issue. They're unhappy with the change. I don't have a strong opinion, but impl have an incentive not to change and authors are frustrated they can't get the static pos they want. 16:39:57 fantasai: This is for the WG to discuss. 16:40:05 dbaron: What do impl do today? 16:41:20 Rossen_: WE all match the behavior we agreed on. We started by computing static pos as was requested by this issue. Later we reverted t o 0,0 when order came into play. That added impl complexity. At this point all impl compute static pos as the origin of the flexbox. Fwiw there's already some content dependency on this given the amount of flexbox content. 16:41:32 safari does the right thing imo 16:41:35 Rossen_: IN short, we all do what the spec says. And there's content that will break if we change impl. 16:42:04 Rossen_: Also, the 0,0 static position was not random. There were long discussions. That was not a quick decision to wave it off. 16:42:58 fantasai: I think it was largely because there were a lot of complications on meaning for 'where it would have been' There was a justification problem where if you justify and there's an abspos in the middle whre does it go. WE punted all this complexity and did the origin thing. 16:43:26 s/did the origin thing/defined staticpos as if the abspos were the only item in the flex container/ 16:43:41 It seems to be an issue with this particular library - I'm not hearing the same issue a lot from other authors 16:43:48 Rossen_: Correct. Also one thing worth pointing out is there's an easy work around to achieve the same by adding the 0 size flexbox with relitive position and have whatever you want inside to achieve the same behavior. It sucks to add another element, but it's a totally achievable work around. 16:44:13 astearns: I'm not hearing any impl interest in changing behavior to help this use case. Does anyone want to speak in favor of this change? 16:44:19 eae: We'd rather not change. 16:44:59 fantasai: If we're starting over we could dig in futher, but at this point it will be quite difficult to make a change for something that's not super compelling. Another issue is I don't know how you interpret this in grid and we try and keep them consistant. 16:45:27 astearns: In effect we're resolving the static position of abspos elements is different in flex and grid then in previous layout systems. 16:45:38 Rossen_: But that resolution has been recorded and made in the past. 16:45:58 astearns: Right. We're resolving no change and that out new layout system is different from those in the past. 16:46:04 astearns: So obj to resolving no change? 16:46:14 RESOLVED: No change on issue 401 16:46:27 Topic: Sizing images with intrisic aspect-ratio: ¿harmonize with grids? 16:46:31 https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1112 16:47:08 fremy: Basically this issue came up when I was persuing Manuel's question on the images change in grid. He asked if this applied to flex. I was wondering what we do and I found we aren't interop. 16:47:43 fremy: When we have images the decision to flex is different across brwosers. I wanted to point it out. It seems like Edge is per spec. I wanted to make sure people are okay with spec and, if so, we can file a bug. 16:47:58 astearns: Opinions on FF and Chrome behavior? 16:48:27 fremy: I think if no one reviewed the test case it's unlike there's a conclusion. It's a good time to ping people and make sure there's review. 16:48:37 astearns: I think next step is for you to write bugs. 16:48:42 fremy: That's fine. I can do that. 16:48:54 dbaron: If you write bus, please link to this issue in both directions. 16:48:56 fremy: Okay 16:50:04 fantasai: I think there's two things where there are bugs, but if anyone wants to think about what we should be doing here...there is a distinction in flexbox where if you're larger then intrinisic you get one beavior and smaller is a different behavior. Anyone with an interest can look at the behavior as spec and do we need to tweek flex, or grid, or leave as-is. That's the question at hand. 16:50:29 action fremy to write bugs on other browsers to get a responce on if they can change to match spec (for issue #1112) 16:50:29 Created ACTION-837 - Write bugs on other browsers to get a responce on if they can change to match spec (for issue #1112) [on François Remy - due 2017-03-29]. 16:50:34 https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/316 16:50:40 fantasai: There's another flex issue that needs input ^ 16:50:45 fantasai: Not to resolve now 16:51:49 fantasai: We have a problem with how flexbox works. The goal was if you say flex and then an int the goal is the flexbox would take that int's space. So if you want it even you can do all 1, you could do 2 and 1 o get thirds. But that doesn't work right now because the effective flex basis is not 0, but the sum of the margins and borders and padding. 16:52:20 fantasai: It would be nice to fix the spec to get expected behavior of exact preportions. I don't know if that's web compat or how to evaluate this. 16:52:36 astearns: So you would get the precise behavior only if box sizing is set to border-box? 16:53:07 fantasai: For sure that would work. Flex-basis is set to follow content box sizing. If you're using border-box sizing it should account for the entire border box. 16:53:33 dbaron: I guess some of the question is what stage can things go negative. Normally with box sizing we have that the content box can't be negative. 16:53:44 fantasai: I'm not sure what case would be negative 16:53:58 dbaron: flex-basis of 0 and border box then your content box would be negative 16:54:01 astearns: If you have norders 16:54:03 fantasai: Yeah. 16:54:37 It's also not clear to me if we could take a compat hit here at this point 16:54:49 yeah 16:54:54 fantasai: End result to maintin the varient where content box is never neg the flex would have to impose the sume of borders and padding as a minum. So content box won't be negative but flex-basis used value could be negative. WE use the outer size of the flex item in calculations. 16:55:23 astearns: Both dbaron and TabAtkins mentioned that for compat we prob can't change. I'm thinking this might be next level of flexbox to have an additional switch to get ther desired behavior. 16:56:29 fantasai: I'm worried, but I'm not sure we're in that situation. I think more flexbox use an equal number instead of aiming for a ratio and that's the only cases where you would have a change. If the padding is small comparitively you wouldn't really notice the change. It might be an issue, it might not. I do think we really screwed up in relation to the intention for it. 16:56:41 fantasai: I'm interested in what people think about compat and what's a good way to evaluate. 16:56:54 astearns: Alright. Thanks for bringing this up. It's good to get people thinking. 16:57:06 Topic: percentage [max-]width|height and intrinsic sizes 16:57:12 astearns: We have 3 minutes 16:57:25 yes please resolve to republish 16:57:27 fantasai: That's scary. Let's jsut resolve to republish flexbox as it's out of date? 16:57:35 astearns: THat's possible. It's CR? 16:57:37 fantasai: Yes. 16:57:45 fantasai: Let me pull the issue list. 16:57:52 https://drafts.csswg.org/css-flexbox/issues-cr-20160526 16:57:57 fantasai: I do have a DoC, but we have a couple more issues. 16:58:05 astearns: We're close but not quite for republish. 16:58:08 ok 16:58:16 astearns: Let's get those issue on next week's agenda. 16:58:39 astearns: I think we should call it for the week, looking at the remaining issues. 16:59:03 astearns: Thanks everyone for calling in. I'll follow-up on a few of the rec steps that need some people assigned. 16:59:11 you couldn't just require min-speech-rate: 3tbl for the rest of the call? :-) 16:59:13 astearns: I'll also send a summary. 16:59:17 astearns: Thanks everyone. 17:00:21 trackbot, end meeting 17:00:21 Zakim, list attendees 17:00:21 As of this point the attendees have been dbaron, astearns, skk, dael, antenna, Rossen_, rachelandrew, gregwhitworth, bdc, tgraham, alex_antennahouse, ChrisL, Vlad, eae, MaRakow, 17:00:24 ... tantek, myles, plinss, jensimmons, smfr, antonp, hober, bradk, tmichel, melanierichards, Bert, gsnedders 17:00:29 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 17:00:29 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/22-css-minutes.html trackbot 17:00:30 RRSAgent, bye 17:00:30 I see no action items