15:49:44 RRSAgent has joined #css 15:49:44 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/03/29-css-irc 15:49:46 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:49:46 Zakim has joined #css 15:49:48 Zakim, this will be Style_CSS FP 15:49:48 ok, trackbot 15:49:49 Meeting: Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Working Group Teleconference 15:49:49 Date: 29 March 2017 15:49:58 present+ 15:50:27 dael has joined #css 15:50:42 Rossen: I filed a css-grid issue probably worth mentioning 15:52:31 present+ 15:52:58 Hi Daniel - thanks for the heads up 15:55:14 tantek has joined #css 15:56:55 bdc has joined #css 15:57:19 antenna has joined #css 15:57:35 present+ dael 15:58:47 present+ 15:58:49 tmichel has joined #css 15:59:12 present+ bdc 15:59:13 ScribeNick: dael 15:59:39 present+ 15:59:45 present+ 15:59:53 present+ 16:00:05 present+ 16:00:06 Rossen, I sent an update on CSS Fonts 3 progress just before the call 16:00:07 present+ 16:00:42 present+ 16:00:48 present+ antonp 16:00:53 present+ 16:01:51 Guest87 has joined #css 16:02:04 presnet+ 16:02:06 present+ 16:02:06 present+ 16:02:17 bcampbell has joined #css 16:02:20 bgirard has joined #css 16:02:32 prensent+ florian 16:02:39 present+ melanierichards 16:03:10 Rossen_: Let's get going. 16:03:20 Rossen_: Any extra items that you want o nthe agenda? 16:03:32 Zakim: who's on the call? 16:03:33 glazou: The CSS Grid issue I mentioned. Issue 1137 16:03:39 oh wait 16:03:41 bleh 16:03:43 bradk has joined #css 16:03:49 Zakim, who is here? 16:03:49 Present: Rossen_, glazou, dael, antenna, bdc, plinss, ChrisL, tmichel, leaverou, gsnedders, tantek, antonp, jensimmons, rachelandrew, fantasai, melanierichards 16:03:52 On IRC I see bradk, bgirard, bcampbell, rachelandrew, tmichel, antenna, bdc, tantek, dael, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rossen_, Florian, antonp, glazou, stryx`, jensimmons, gsnedders, ChrisL, 16:03:52 ... lajava, Tav, tgraham``, ben_thatmustbeme, logbot, liam, hyatt, Karen, koji, astearns, cwilso, eae, amtiskaw, ed, mantaroh__, hober, mstange, SimonSapin, paul___irish, sylvaing, 16:03:56 ... shans, Rossen, plinss, leaverou, projector, rego, geheimnis`, decadance, Bert, trackbot, Alexendoo, slightlyoff, jet, mantaroh, CSSWG_LogBot, xidorn, tobie, bradwerth, 16:03:56 ... TabAtkins 16:03:57 Rossen_: Thanks. This issue hasn't had any take on GH so I'll leave it for the end. If we don't get it it'll take it's turn on GH. 16:04:25 Rossen_: Quick reminder. Next F2F is coming up soon. We have a couple weeks. If you haven't made travel arrangements you better hurry up. 16:04:36 Rossen_: Also please add topics to the F2F agenda. 16:05:00 fantasai: For the agenda, for filly/stroke to publish I need a level so we need to resolve on that. 16:05:07 Rossen_: Did you have one in mind? 16:05:11 fantasai: I would suggest 3. 16:05:17 ChrisL: makes sense to me 16:05:31 Rossen_: Any objections to FPWD of fill-stroke as level 3? 16:05:44 RESOLVED: FPWD of fill-stroke as level 3 16:05:57 rrsagent, here 16:05:57 See http://www.w3.org/2017/03/29-css-irc#T16-05-57 16:05:58 Topic: Spec REC-ing 16:06:12 Present+ 16:06:19 Rossen_: First is writing modes. I didn't hear from koji. Is he on the call? 16:06:26 Rossen_: Okay, let's come back to that. 16:06:42 Rossen_: Updates on Fonts L3? I know Chris was adding tests and myles IDing features for L4 16:07:20 ChrisL: I sent an update with more tests and I started converting to ref tests. Still blocked that Edge and FF don't render the test correctly. The font renders differently I sent you a message Rossen_ 16:07:27 Rossen_: It's an interop issue between the browsers? 16:07:29 ChrisL: Yes. 16:07:37 fantasai: Sounds like it might be on the font. 16:07:44 present+ 16:07:48 I think Chris said something about the advance in the test font 16:07:55 ChrisL: Yes. I think FF is passing some tests but it's hard to tell because characters are o top of each other. 16:07:59 Rossen_: Did you try IE? 16:08:02 Vlad has joined #css 16:08:04 ChrisL: I did not. 16:08:22 fantasai: Maybe CC Sergey on the issue? 16:08:37 present+ 16:08:45 present+ 16:08:46 present+ 16:08:46 Rossen_: I have fonts people I can talk to. I'm looking for the email from you and I'm not seeing it yet. Once I find it I'll get someone to look. 16:08:57 ChrisL, maybe cc: jfkthame about the font thing for Gecko... although my guess might be that the bug is the other way around... ? 16:09:11 Rossen_: In respect to the test, becides that blocker you said you added a number of tests. Do you need any help? 16:09:28 ChrisL: I need a bit of help. Some thigns aren't testable using that method. In general it's going well. 16:09:40 Rossen_: In terms of IDing features to move to L4 have we made progress? 16:09:49 ChrisL: Not yet. It's hard to tell FF and Edge pass/fail 16:09:57 Rossen_: So because of the blocker we can't make progress. 16:09:59 ChrisL: Yes. 16:10:06 Rossen_: Thank you. 16:10:11 Rossen_: Next is Cascade 3 16:10:25 Rossen_: We had scoped style edits for fantasai I thinkt hose are done. 16:10:34 fantasai: I don't think so. I don't remember doing them. 16:10:42 Rossen_: Okay. So these are still pending. 16:11:02 Rossen_: From last time we had that you were going to drop scoped styles. 16:11:12 Rossen_: gregwhitworth testing update? 16:11:47 gregwhitworth: We weren't able to get any of our tests converted except one, but we're looking at that internally. We're hoping to get the others in this week. I think another browser was doing testing too. 16:12:04 Rossen_: I think there was an ask for dbaron to find someone from Mozilla to convert those tests. HAs that happened? 16:12:07 dbaron: No. 16:12:10 Rossen_: Okay. Thanks 16:12:14 Rossen_: Conditional rules. 16:12:31 Rossen_: We had some edits to be done for CSSOM. Did we make those dbaron or zcorpan? 16:12:34 dbaron: I didn't. 16:12:36 Rossen_: Okay. 16:13:07 Rossen_: I don't see zcorpan on. I'll reach out. If he can't help, would you need someone else to help? 16:13:23 dbaron: I don't know. Depends on speed. I'm pretty unavailable before the F2F. 16:13:45 Rossen_: I'm jsut trying to draw a timeline for expectations. If you can't work and zcorpan isn't available maybe we can get someone else. 16:14:03 fantasai: I suggest deferring to the F2F. dbaron and zcorpan can work it out there. They seemed like simple edits. 16:14:23 fantasai: There have been some edits that should prob be published. If ChrisL or Bert can prepare a CR that would be good. 16:15:19 Rossen_: I recall last week we wanted the CSSOM edits before we republish. If we want another publish before the F2F I'm in favor of that. But I wouldn't want too much paperwork for Chris & Co in this month if there aren't that many edits. I'll give it tothe editors for a preference. dbaron? 16:15:33 dbaron: I don't know what's in it. 16:15:39 Rossen_: fantasai do you know? 16:16:10 fantasai: We made changes to how parans are handled in supports rules. THey were resolved on a few years ago. If ChrisL will do publication I can do the paperwork on dbaron's behalf. 16:16:20 ChrisL: Updated CR with technical edits. Is there a DoC? 16:16:25 fantasai: I can draft one. 16:16:37 Rossen_: Object to republishing CSS Conditional Rules CR update? 16:16:48 RESOLVED: republish CSS Conditional Rules CR update 16:17:02 Rossen_: There was a request for tests from Mozilla and MS. gregwhitworth? 16:17:14 gregwhitworth: We haven't gotten to that one yet. 16:17:16 Rossen_: Okay. 16:17:22 Rossen_: Did we get mozilla tests? 16:17:36 dbaron: I haven't looked yet. I don't know if someone else has a chance. 16:17:41 Rossen_: tantek can you help? 16:18:04 or rather, on the minutes, not for now, but I can look into it? 16:18:10 Rossen_: We'll continue to wait for more tests. 16:18:13 MaRakow has joined #CSS 16:18:14 Rossen_: Values & Units. 16:18:18 present+ 16:18:31 present+ 16:18:34 Rossen_: Any updates on...there was a republication call. Are the edits ready? 16:18:49 fantasai: They are. Waiting for people to look over position edits. If they're approved we're good to go. 16:18:57 Rossen_: Has anyone been able to look at the edits? 16:19:09 Rossen_: Let's give people one more week on this. 16:19:35 Rossen_: It would be good to hear from impl and anyone else with interest since it's a core spec. Please look we'd like to republish. 16:19:40 Rossen_: Backgrounds & Borders 16:20:00 Rossen_: We were going to get an impl report, maybe some Mozilla tests. dbaron I'll take it you couldn't look into those tests. 16:20:11 dbaron: Right. I haven't had a chance to look into any testing in the last week. 16:20:23 astearns: tmichel sent the impl report to the list. I haven't had a chance to look. 16:20:39 tmichel: I don't have more thant he email I sent. 16:20:55 (There were several dubious tests for backgrounds. What to do with those?) 16:21:05 tmichel: I did a list of the tests that have 1 or 0 implementations and also some links to what we call an impl report that lists all the tests and results. 16:21:11 Bert, correct them :) 16:21:24 tmichel: As I said we have about 80% fulfilling the requirements 16:22:27 82 % passing. 16:22:37 Rossen_: So 82.5% of the tests pass. We have about 17.5% with 0 or 1 impl meaning we're not that ready. Thank you tmichel for preparing the reports. 16:22:45 Next action is file bugs and link them from the report 16:23:00 Rossen_: Next call to action would be a look from impl to see what is not passing and start to evaluate the tests and impl so we can get closer to CR. 16:23:13 Rossen_: So again, thank you tmichel 16:23:44 tmichel: I'd like to add...I have some email with gerard and he pointed out about 20 tests that were wrong so I should be able to edit those today. They have improveper images or links. 16:24:18 tmichel: 20 broken tests. I should be fixing those and then I will run the impl again on those. So there's 20 more tests that may be passing. 16:24:23 Rossen_: That would be great news. 16:24:25 tmichel: Sure. 16:24:34 tmichel: I'll let you know when it's done. 16:24:39 Rossen_: Transforms L1 16:24:43 gsnedders, dbaron: do we have export set up from mozilla's repo to WPT's CSS repo? 16:24:56 Rossen_: We were going to set up a conf call with SVG folks. Did we get around to this fantasai? 16:25:07 fantasai: for the stuff that we were previously exporting to csswg-test? 16:25:12 fantasai: I'm going to do that. I'll have to check with Simon. But I wanted to prep the agenda first. 16:25:15 Rossen_: Flexbox 16:25:28 dbaron, yeah 16:25:31 Rossen_: We had a few more edits holding us from republication. Did those edits make it over the week? 16:25:33 dbaron, also in general... 16:25:37 fantasai, I figure I'll continue doing it 16:25:52 dbaron, fantasai: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1341077#c2 16:26:02 Rossen_: fantasai? 16:26:17 fantasai: It was a couple of open issues, not jsut edits. We need to get those on the agenda. 16:26:20 Rossen_: Alright. 16:26:21 dbaron: probably should've :needsinfo'd you 16:26:26 Rossen_: Did we make progress on tests? 16:26:36 dbaron, wanted to know what's the best way to shift things from mozilla's internal to csswg 16:27:13 gregwhitworth: I did a brief review of the tests. THere's quite a few in there. I'll run those against the browsers, figure out where they fail as a start to figure out what needs to be looked into. Once I get a handle on that I'll figure out where we need more coverage. I couldn't find any report from previous. 16:27:26 gregwhitworth: I don't know the earliest I could get it to you, I'm busy for a few weeks. 16:27:31 Rossen_: Progress o nvariables? 16:27:38 dbaron, since understanding that process would make it possible to shift more Mozilla tests into WPT :) 16:27:48 gregwhitworth: I submitted our test suite. It is agains the css wg repo currently. 16:27:53 Rossen_: Awesome. Thanks gregwhitworth 16:28:08 Rossen_: Finally, CSS UI there was a call for astearns or fantasai to review tests 16:28:46 Florian: There were 4 pull requests. fantasai reviewed 3, gsnedders did the 4th. gsnedders and one of fantasai are done. The edits requested for fantasai's other two are done and awaiting review 16:28:51 fantasai: Should be able to work on that today. 16:29:10 Rossen_: So the tests you have...the pull requests were approved? 16:29:19 fantasai: in a few weeks, cp from anywhere in the repo to testing/web-platform/tests will get them there 16:29:21 Florian: The 4 PRs were by me so I needed review. 16:29:25 Rossen_: Okay. Good, good. 16:29:31 Rossen_: I thought it was spec edits. 16:29:47 fantasai: I think there are some rules about making sure they're not MPL licensed before moving them there 16:29:53 Florian: Hopefully not. I'll report soon. 16:30:08 Rossen_: Circling back to writing modes, I know koji sent a report. koji are you on? 16:30:42 Rossen_: impl reports 98% which meets the TR exit criteria. We'll transition soon. We'll loop back next week. 16:30:49 Rossen_: Thanks for the updates and awesome progress. 16:30:59 Topic: Publish request to updated WD of css-align-3 16:31:08 Rossen_: Did people get to look through the edits? 16:31:30 I am a fan of that 16:31:32 fantasai: It's a bunch of bug fixes. There's no real change. it was clarified to say what was intended. 16:31:43 in fact, can we give editor's blanket permission to do that for "just a bunch of bug fixes" 16:31:44 Rossen_: Objections to republishing? 16:31:50 editors* 16:31:55 REOSLVED: Republish updated WD of css-align-3 16:32:01 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2017JanMar/0198.html 16:32:49 fantasai: There's two open issues. One is the one discussed earlier about scrollable inline blocks. We should add that to next week's agenda. Other is syntax on fallback alignment. TabAtkins and I were thinking we should just drop fallback from this level so we can go to CR. 16:32:55 fantasai, did we drop the various metadata requirements? Otherwise the issue is still needing to add all the spec metadata that the tests don't currently have. 16:33:09 Rossen_: Thank you. Issues are highlighted in the private list as well. Please provide feedback 16:33:15 dbaron, not all of them, no 16:33:18 Topic: Blink Intent to Implement conic-gradient() 16:33:29 dbaron, they still need to be tied into a spec section 16:34:02 leaverou: We haven't published a draft of images 4 in 5 years. We need to publish. Since I wrote the initial proposal, I think it would make sense to be added as a co-editor. 16:34:08 leaverou++ yes please!!! 16:34:10 https://www.w3.org/TR/css4-images/ 16:34:13 fantasai: I'm in favor of all that. We don't have a FP for images 4 16:34:17 ChrisL: We do. It's 2012. 16:34:20 https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-css4-images-20120911/ 16:34:21 also +1 to adding leaverou as co-editor 16:34:21 https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-css4-images-20120911/ 16:34:29 leaverou: Here it is ^ 16:34:37 fantasai: Yeah. We should update that. 16:34:42 minuted resolutions? 16:34:47 gsnedders: I presume we want to change the short name. 16:34:56 Florian: That too. I'm infavor of the coeditor 16:34:57 yes it should be css-images-4 16:34:59 TabAtkins: Me too. 16:35:08 the shortname change is against previous resolutions 16:35:12 don't need to re-resolve :) 16:35:16 Rossen_: Let's go one at a time. First one, add leaverou as co-editor for css images. Objections? 16:35:24 RESOLVED: add leaverou as co-editor for css images 16:35:31 Rossen_: THanks leaverou and welcome as a coeditor 16:35:46 Rossen_: Next is a new WD publication for css-images 4. Obejctions? 16:35:51 s/to change the short name./to resolve to change the short name./ 16:35:53 SteveZ has joined #css 16:35:55 RESOLVED: new WD publication for css-images 4 16:36:05 Rossen_: Final, short name for the spec. 16:36:14 Rossen_: I heard TabAtkins 16:36:29 fantasai: We have resolutions to update the short names. We're fine there. 16:36:36 Rossen_: What was the new shortname? 16:36:40 fantasai: css-images-4 16:36:52 Florian: Another reoslution is easier to find. Rather than hunt. 16:37:01 Rossen_: Yes, please update. 16:37:18 RESOLVED: Update shortname to css-images-4 16:37:34 Rossen_: Anything else to discuss in regards to conic-gradient()? 16:37:53 leaverou: There are a lot of outstanding issues, but we can discuss after WD 16:38:23 Topic: lots of multicolumn 16:38:30 Rossen_: Who wants to take those? 16:38:45 s/We haven't published a draft of images 4 in 5 years. /We have not published a draft of CSS Images 4 for 5 years. Now that Blink published an intent to implement conic gradients, we need to publish one as soon as possible, so that people are not referring to outdated syntax./ 16:38:48 https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1071 16:38:51 fantasai: I think col-span & tables is an error in the spec. It should jsut say the element creates a new formatting context. 16:38:57 Florian: I agree. 16:39:01 s/We need to publish. Since I wrote the initial proposal, I think it would make sense to be added as a co-editor./On that subject, since I wrote the initial proposal for conic gradients 6 years ago, edited that part of the spec several times, wrote a polyfill, and promoted it to both authors and implementors, it makes sense to be added as a co-editor so I can continue pushing the specification forward./ 16:39:03 Rossen_: I couldn't agree more. 16:39:14 Rossen_: Objections to correcting wrong verbage in the spec? 16:39:28 Rossen_: column-spans create a formatting context, not a specific one. 16:39:48 Florian: Clarification, what we want is if it creates a formating context, good, if it doesn't it's a BFC 16:40:14 fantasai: its formatting context is determined by the display. We could do something in the future like block where you're sharing formatting context. 16:40:30 Florian: We have a definition of establishes one that determines what you should establish? 16:40:39 fantasai: I think so. If it's not clear in display we'll calrify. 16:40:49 Rossen_: For multicol it should be establishes. 16:40:52 https://drafts.csswg.org/css-display/#formatting-context 16:40:54 It's defined 16:40:56 dbaron: It does need to link to something. 16:41:08 Florian: If it exists good, if it doesn't I'll file an issues. 16:41:21 Rossen_: Obj? 16:41:35 RESOLVED: column-spans create a formatting context, not a specific one 16:41:45 dbaron: Other question in that issue was around interop and tables. 16:42:09 TabAtkins: I thought everyone agreed. 16:42:18 dbaron: Nevermind. I'm crossing two issues. 16:42:30 Rossen_: Next was issue 1074 16:42:35 https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1074 16:42:36 Rossen_: Florian added this. 16:42:40 present+ Steve Z 16:43:18 Florian: We initially postponed because we wanted to work on other things, but there's no dependency. If you set column-span on something that's not a child of the multi-col what do you do? nothing, establish a formatting context? We have impl doing both. What do we want? 16:44:06 fantasai: I recommend always a formatting conext. THe author layed out the context with the assumption that it has a formatting conext. If the author is tweeking the layout and turns off multi-col there unexpected behavior on how the kids collapse in the spanner. 16:44:28 +1 fantasai 16:44:31 fantasai: In order to minimize the difference between being a multicol and then not we may as well make it a formatting context. I'm not dead set, though. 16:44:54 Florian: I believe we have the logic that if it is in a one column multi-col it does a formatting context so extending makes sense to me. 16:45:01 Florian: Anyone feels the other way? 16:45:15 jensimmons: I'm thinking about how this will feel consistant or not with Grid. 16:45:36 s/has a formatting context/establishes a new formatting context, meaning it contains floats and margins--its childrens' margins don't collapse with the spanner itself/ 16:45:40 jensimmons: Will it be weird the children will behave as if the formatting conext exists where if you remove display:grid the children don't act seperate. 16:46:17 What fantasai said is right for when you have media queries too. 16:46:23 Rossen_: I recall this issue...we discussed with howcome 5 years ago. I believe he pushed for not a formatting context. Those are probably some of the last changes he made so they should be easy to trace. Doens't mean we can't change. 16:46:49 Florian: WE had a similar discussion. WE did not discuss if you're not in multicol, we discussed the narrow one column multicol. 16:47:14 Florian: We resolved in that case you get a formatting conext. It's not clear if it's meant to apply when there's no multi-col. 16:47:32 Rossen_: With those options, what do people think? 16:47:33 (Sounds strange to me that 'column-span' has any effect outside columns.) 16:47:45 Florian: I agree with fantasai and no one is speaking against. 16:47:52 Rossen_: There was jensimmons's question. 16:47:56 Florian: Yeah. Absolutely. 16:48:09 fwiw, my intuition was that it should work the other way, but... 16:48:33 Rossen_: In that case...do we have...dbaron your intuition is for the other way. Can youe xpand? 16:49:01 dbaron: It was that it seemed weird for column-span do something when you're not in a multi-col. It is different then a one column multicol. 16:49:26 jensimmons: I agree. It feels weird it would do something when not in a multicol. If there's a one column multicol you're still in a multicol. 16:49:46 Rossen_: Yeah. it would feel weird if I added a grid property to the table and it behaves different. 16:49:49 jensimmons: Right. 16:50:25 fantasai: I think what makes it different from grid as far as its contents are concerned it like a special kind of block container. So it's still a block container, jsut not a multicol block container. 16:51:17 Florian: If you change your mind and stop using grid you have to change the design of the grid items. If you change your mind and stop using multicol you don't have to change the contents so you might forget you have something. I could be convinced either way. 16:51:21 tm has joined #css 16:52:00 jensimmons: I think of this as a matter of how the browsers use this then I have no opinion. But if there's anything like margin collapsing that would change then it doesn't impact authors and we should do things the way that works for browsers. 16:53:07 Florian: It does make a difference for margin collapsing and float intrusian. fantasai mean that multicol layout isn't very different then block layout except that there's a boundary. Almost everything is the same as normal block layout. You might not change everything and be left with just spanners. For grid or tables you'd have to rework everything. 16:54:16 Rossen_: Let me try to move this forward. If we have an element to which we apply column-span:all and there's a 2 col multicol. The element will be taken out of the flow, made BFC, and everything around it would behave like a BFC would such as margin collapsing. Then the container of the multicol is resized so it becomes a single column- nothign else has changed. 16:54:24 bradk, we have 'display: flow-root' for that! 16:54:38 bradk, you can request a BFC explicitly :) 16:54:43 Rossen_: Because of the column definition it became a single column. This column-span:all is still spanning all columns. Questions is if this is a BFC. correct? 16:55:11 Florian: No, that one is so far a BFC. If you now remove that this is a multicol at all, should we still have a BFC? 16:55:39 Rossen_: Right, right. THis is how it works when the parent is a multicolumn. THe last change is we remove the root. IN which case what happens? 16:56:32 The other content-editing risk is that if people start using 'column-span: all' to force a BFC, they might get unexpected results if they then take their content and put it inside a multicol... 16:56:39 Rossen_: First my intuition as an impl if this element that used to be multicol no longer has a reason to be a BFC there will be a layout change. The fact that there's something inside of it that changes its BFC-ness shouldn't be any different. Do we have a reason to believe it should be treated differently? 16:56:53 Rossen_: I'm making a case for it to not be a BFC anymore. 16:57:46 jensimmons: I lean tha way too. If we don't do it that way...we would create column-span into a brand new property that works by itself. You remove the multi-col and you think you're done, but you're not because there's a column-span. 16:58:35 gsnedders, yes :) 16:59:11 IMO that's something we should try to get to REC ASAP given it'll stop authors doing weird hacks 16:59:24 Florian: I think that's the critical quesiotn. If you're writing from scratch it makes no sense. But if you're in the scenario should you have to go through all your stylesheets and remove everything? If you remove the multicol do you have to go back into all your style sheets. If you want to remove all column-ness you may want to remove them from everywhere if they still have effect without multicol. The scenario where you had multicol and edited it away. 16:59:48 agree with jensimmons, I'm not keen on it creating a BFC if multi-col is gone 16:59:58 jensimmons: And that's the case fantasai is making that you had the layout working and you remove the multicol it would be good to have it still work. But I think it makes sense to work more like grid. 17:01:25 fantasai: But this is the only part that behaves differently. Currently all your children and decendants don't care that they're in a multicol in terms of layout. column-span does change how a child or decendant...that's the only property with an effect. For grid or layout everything changes from block to grid container. You will notice if something is off. This is fairly subtle and it's rarely used feature. The other children have no special behavior 17:01:42 (Keeping the BFC only makes (a little) sense if you had *one* column before you removed the 'columns' property. With more columns, ignoring the column-span is probably exactly what you want...) 17:01:49 Florian: I have a slightly different argument. If instead of thinking in terms of editing the multicol, we think of MQ putting it in and out. 17:01:52 Rossen_: That's the same thing. 17:02:03 Florian: Technically, but authorwise the thinking is different. 17:02:18 Rossen_: I think we need to discuss this. As an impl I'm leaning toward jensimmons. 17:02:35 Rossen_: We're at the top of the hour. I would encourage people to continue discussing in issue 1074. 17:02:39 bye 17:02:47 Rossen_: Thanks for joining us and we'll talk to you next week. 17:03:13 jensimmons: Congrats to everyone for getting grid out in the last month! 17:03:17 speaking of grids, jensimmons please see issue 1137 17:03:29 +1000 jen, huge win for the web! 17:03:54 glazou: you pinged me yesterday-ish? 17:05:03 trackbot, end meeting 17:05:03 Zakim, list attendees 17:05:03 As of this point the attendees have been Rossen_, glazou, dael, antenna, bdc, plinss, ChrisL, tmichel, leaverou, gsnedders, tantek, antonp, jensimmons, rachelandrew, fantasai, 17:05:06 ... melanierichards, dbaron, Bert, eae, astearns, Vlad, MaRakow, bradk, Steve, Z 17:05:11 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 17:05:11 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/29-css-minutes.html trackbot 17:05:12 RRSAgent, bye 17:05:12 I see no action items