15:49:26 RRSAgent has joined #css 15:49:26 logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/04/25-css-irc 15:49:28 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:49:28 Zakim has joined #css 15:49:30 Meeting: Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Working Group Teleconference 15:49:30 Date: 25 April 2018 15:50:26 zcorpan has joined #css 15:50:33 regrets for today meeting, sorry but I won't be around during the meeting 15:51:41 dael has joined #css 15:51:50 rachelandrew has joined #css 15:51:53 no worries, rego. thanks for letting us know 15:53:39 bdc has joined #css 15:55:24 tgraham has joined #css 15:58:03 jyasskin has joined #css 15:58:07 dael has joined #css 15:58:11 bgirard has joined #css 15:58:41 present+ dael 15:58:47 ScribeNick: dael 15:59:05 present+ bdc 15:59:10 present+ 15:59:15 present+ 15:59:32 smfr has joined #css 15:59:59 present+ dauwhe 16:01:03 antenna has joined #css 16:01:12 present+ florian 16:01:15 present+ 16:01:17 Vlad has joined #css 16:01:33 present+ 16:01:46 present+ 16:02:18 Rossen_ has joined #css 16:02:22 Present+ 16:02:23 present+ 16:02:26 present+ antonp 16:02:30 Howdy 16:03:04 present+ 16:03:09 garrett has joined #css 16:03:27 present+ 16:03:28 present+ 16:03:34 present+ 16:03:35 jensimmons has joined #css 16:03:37 present+ 16:03:38 astearns: We have enough people to get going. Does anyone have something to add to the agenda? 16:03:41 present+ 16:03:44 florian: I sent one by email 16:03:53 astearns: I noted it. Let's do tat first 16:03:56 shane has joined #css 16:04:05 Topic: updated CR of css-contain-1 16:04:09 https://www.w3.org/mid/8A8F922A-7A5D-479D-9B35-A31982967736@rivoal.net 16:04:16 present+ 16:04:23 s/tat/that 16:04:30 florian: As listed on that email ^ there's a complete DoC and change section. WE have tests for every change since last CR. 16:04:36 florian: Should we publish CR again? 16:04:39 astearns: sgtm 16:04:44 astearns: You've been very through. 16:04:52 astearns: Obj to publish updated CR of css-contain-1 16:05:00 RESOLVED: publish updated CR of css-contain-1 16:05:29 florian: Since I don't think we have 2 impl we're not close to existing CR. Do we still need minimum transition period? 16:05:33 astearns: What's standard? 16:05:41 florian: weeks? 16:05:47 gsnedders: It's 60 days standard. 16:05:52 astearns: Is that first CR or every? 16:05:56 gsnedders: Every I believe. 16:06:03 zcorpan has joined #css 16:06:12 florian: WE won't exit in 60 days anyhow so we should just state something. 16:06:17 astearns: Let's go with 60 days. 16:06:43 florian: We do not have tests for everything in the spec so tests are welcome. 16:06:57 Topic: Should we add scientific notation to CSS 2.1? 16:07:03 github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2542 16:07:23 gsnedders: We accidently agreed to add scentific notification to CSS L2. Do we want to do that for real? 16:07:27 florian: When did we agree? 16:07:41 ChrisL has joined #css 16:08:02 gsnedders: Agreed before the reset but after the rec. WE said we'd normatively reference CSS 3 syntax which added a new feature. 16:08:12 florian: Is the CSS 3 syntax reference separate? 16:08:16 gsnedders: Yes, next. 16:08:19 fremy has joined #css 16:08:24 gsnedders: Do we want to add a new feature to CSS 2? 16:08:26 I'm not sure it is a new feature, given it is not independently testable 16:08:32 astearns: I think no. Anyone disagree? 16:08:35 present+ 16:08:58 ChrisL: Disagree. THis is not a new feature, it's a new way of expressing something. You can't test the syntax without testing an app or a value. It's an internal spec matter. 16:09:21 florian: Defining the syntax is, but pinting to the spec that does new things isn't new? 16:09:21 tantek has joined #css 16:09:41 ChrisL: We point to the syntax but the features are in the thing sin 2.1 We don't take advantage of the extra features. REasonable? 16:09:53 florian: I think we need to overflow into the other agenda topic to answer. 16:09:54 present+ 16:10:01 gsnedders: Relevent thing is the definition of number, right? 16:10:11 fantasai: There was an issue around URLs tto, right? 16:10:17 gsnedders: We have errata for that. 16:10:26 present+ 16:10:56 florian: gsnedders your question is not jsut do we want to introduce a new feature but also do we want to introduce a new feature independantly of if we reference the new syntax. 16:11:13 florian: I think the only reason is if we see value and cannot reference syntax 3 without adding it. 16:11:17 present+ 16:11:26 ChrisL: Is this change [missed] or is it an actual change where you support both? 16:11:38 gsnedders: You can support both it's new syntax for the additiona number 16:11:41 q? 16:11:42 ChrisL: So jsut the subset in 2.1 16:12:15 TabAtkins: We could subset css 3 syntax but that's a bag of worms where to do correctly is substanital effort with no benefit. No one is impl css2.1. What is wrong with jsut normatively undefining css syntax for 2.1 16:12:35 q+ 16:12:36 florian: gsnedders wants to discuss possible scientific notation before discussing the link to syntax. 16:12:38 q? 16:13:19 TabAtkins: We either undefine it or we link to Syntax. Those are only 2 options besides doing a lot of work to carve out a subset of what matches in css 2.1. 16:13:26 ack tantek 16:14:14 tantek: I think there's a number of difficult options. I'm not convinced of any one and trying to understand trade offs. For CSS 2 work we have the mos timportant thing gsnedders and I are trying to do is keep the edits rolling in and go through CR/REC alternating process. In my opinion that's the primary driver of where we try and nudge decisions. 16:14:49 q+ 16:14:50 tantek: Ideally we'd like to not introduce any new features. Even if it's inconvenient I'd like to see us do the worth rather then comprimise on that since we promised to ourselves and the community no new features. THat's my preference. 16:15:04 astearns: I suggest we table scentific notation and go straight to the first topic. 16:15:39 tantek: I'm concerned we're ducking the hard question of not adding new features. That's a design principle where as what reference we make is different 16:16:48 florian: I agree with tantek we should stick to the process, but I don't htink that means we have to subset syntax 3. For this section I think I'm with TabAtkins and we should gut out the section that defines syntax and replace it with a note that says previous versions tried to do syntax, was proved incorrect, and we informatively reference the known better work in Syntax. Recognize we had a definition, it wasn't good, and here's what we have that's better. 16:16:59 ack florian 16:17:13 TabAtkins: florian's suggested wording sounds perfect. 16:17:19 s/Is this change [missed] or is it an actual change where you support both?/Is this a true superset or an incompatible change? Is it possible to support both?/ 16:17:26 fantasai: My concern is it makes the spec mostly non-sensical. 16:17:36 I think one could also add to the wording a note that the new module has a new feature: support for scientific notation. 16:17:51 so we can't actually do that without going back to WD, because technically it's normative feature *removal* 16:17:53 fantasai: I'm not saying we need to keep grammar the way it is, but things like this is how you parse css in generla makes the rest of the spec make sense. 16:17:55 q+ 16:18:04 florian: We still point to syntax non-narmative to there's sense. 16:18:25 TabAtkins: No one is adhereing to CSS2, we can jsut point non-normatively to where the definitions are. 16:19:06 florian: Alternatively we keep the old section, put a note saying this is incorrect and put the rest as suggested. So if you're trying to make internal sense of the spec you don't need ot go to another. I don't think that's more useful the just the note. 16:19:31 q+ 16:19:33 fantasai: We'll have notes in all sections pointing to new sections. Reason we're stuck is an inconsistancy between L2 and L3 that means L3 impl is non-conformat to L2. 16:19:44 TabAtkins: Yep, but we don't care about L2 impl. No on impl 2.1 at L2. 16:19:47 ack tantek 16:19:51 agree with Tab 16:20:27 tantek: THe first suggestion to remove the syntax section for CSS 2 and replace with an informative reference to CSS 3 is untenitable because that's a normative feature remove and we can't do that because we're not going back to WD as per the plan we agreed to. 16:20:44 q+ to say we can totally remove features 16:21:00 it is not a feature removal, we're not saying that CSS2 should not have a syntax, just saying that that syntax is undefined. 16:21:09 tantek: I understand and accept the issue that CSS 2 syntax is not something we want people to impl. I don't think there's debate on that guidance. We're debating how to provide the guidance so that's it's clear to webdev and let sus iteratie on 3. 16:21:22 astearns: I think your process point...is that because syntax is not marked as at risk? 16:21:34 tantek: Syntax section, nothing in css 2 is marked at risk. 16:21:44 q? 16:21:46 astearns: We remove nromative features, it's just usually that they're at risk. 16:22:07 florian: I disgree this is feature remval. We're normatively undermining it 16:22:10 tantek: Same thing. 16:22:14 florian: It's not. 16:22:17 q+ 16:22:24 ack gsnedders 16:22:25 q+ 16:22:35 removing something normatively removes it from IP as well 16:22:45 gsnedders: My understanding os changes in syntax 3 are that mostly they relate to error handling. If we simply undefine the error handling wuld that work? 16:22:56 gsnedders++ 16:23:06 from a process perspective, removing or undefining it normatively is a removal of an *essential feature* 16:23:27 TabAtkins: Let's see. Only positive feature is sci notation. Rest is error handling...yeah...normatively no longer have U range token. Yes, it's technically right. But you cannot impl error handling correctly as desc in 2.1 16:23:51 fantasai: Error handling is a separate process and go look at this doc, then. 16:24:01 TabAtkins: YOu can't impl with anything remotely like what looks in spec. 16:24:19 florian: If you take it as a list of things that are correct the grammar is fine. You can use it for a validator 16:24:27 ack ChrisL 16:24:27 ChrisL, you wanted to say we can totally remove features 16:24:28 TabAtkins: How to validate? Nothing is defined in terms of it. 16:24:43 TabAtkins, CSS2.1 stuff is defined in terms of it. 16:25:12 ChrisL: Normally when pub updated REC it's edited rec and you don't go to WD. I think we can change things and mark things at risk and later remove. I also remain unconvinced that this is a feature, it's just how the syntax is expressed. 16:25:18 TabAtkins: Agree. 16:25:28 q? 16:25:37 I'd note that you can't go directly from REC->WD, but you can go REC->CR->WD. I think it's a bug in the process, though. (And I filed it.) 16:25:42 q- 16:25:44 q+ 16:26:07 astearns: As you spoke I was thinking this is something we'll have to deal with in the future for CSS 2. Coming up with a proper way to remove something from CSS 2 to point at a more accurate version is something we'll have to deal with generally 16:26:32 gsnedders: I don't think other cases will be as bad as this. Things like properties we can just say L2 accepts these properties, see L3 for definition. 16:26:37 dbaron huh? pretty sure you have to go REC->WD per current process with new features (and I think for removed features too - checking now) 16:26:39 florian: We can defer to L3 as REC. 16:26:39 ack fantasai 16:26:50 tantek: Process doesn't say, just for "new features" 16:27:21 jihye has joined #css 16:27:22 tantek, the process for revising a REC doesn't allow transitions other than REC->REC, REC->PR, or REC->CR, IIRC 16:27:40 fantasai: My preference would be not to removet he section because it's a gaping hole. WE can remove error handling and we can add a reference to CSS 3 and we can add a statement at the top saying you can be conformat by impl here or L3. But ripping out the whole section I'm not comfortable. Internally CSS2 is defined in terms with its own grammar. 16:27:59 dbaron: https://www.w3.org/2018/Process-20180201/#rec-modify 16:28:06 dbaron: it's REC->REC, REC->CR, or REC->FPWD 16:28:16 dbaron, gsnedders is right - see flow chart 16:28:31 fantasai: In that error handling we can say this is not correct, there is error handling and it means these things and the details are in L3, but it leaves us some overall syntax. THen we also have a reference for if you want to impl a parser go look overthere. 16:28:35 REC -> substantive changes? -> yes -> new features? -> yes -> FPWD 16:28:39 florian: You don't want to break internal links? 16:28:44 TabAtkins: Semantic links. 16:28:46 florian: Sure. 16:28:52 looks like we can technically skip WD for *removing* features 16:29:15 TabAtkins: My challange to that is what's better? A spec that points to a broken incorrect issue or a spec that is hand wavy. No one prefers to pointin to a broken thing. 16:29:25 tantek, gsnedders: on the other hand, see the "next steps" in https://w3c.github.io/w3process/#rec-publication 16:29:26 florian: Entry point of Syntax and SS 2 grammar are they the same? 16:29:35 TabAtkins: THat concept isn't in CSS 2. 16:29:39 so now I'm ok with first Florian proposal, turning current section informative (thus normatively undefining), and adding informative reference to CSS3 Syntax 16:29:54 florian: Terms CSS 2 uses other than gramamr still need to make sense. Nneed to understand what talking about. 16:30:07 dbaron: yes, I think REC->FPWD is expected to be a new REC-track document 16:30:15 TabAtkins: IN terms of property we use the same terms. CSS2 uses a token sceme, but it's the same terminals. 16:30:53 gsnedders, yes, that's what the last sentence of https://w3c.github.io/w3process/#revised-rec says 16:30:54 dbaron, looks like those "next steps" are not comprehensive, good catch. please cc me on the issue you filed on the process per that section 16:31:08 fantasai: I'm suggesting the hand wavy thing isn't a giant gaping hole. We take that section, the error handling is where the problems and that small section can be turned into something more hand wavy and let's say it's less tight but have the rest of the section in tackt. 16:31:09 philipwalton has joined #css 16:31:22 TabAtkins: You have to go read other things. You can't read that grammar and impl CSS. 16:31:28 fantasai: I'm not necessarily a impl! 16:31:33 ack tantek 16:31:34 q? 16:31:38 TabAtkins: If you're not impl you're not looking at tokenization 16:31:51 tantek, my issue was https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/103 16:32:11 q+ yes, because removal has no patent implcations 16:32:15 TabAtkins, afaict you're not asking to remove tokenization, you're asking to remove all of Chapter 4 16:32:53 tantek: I double checked the process. It looks like if we add features we have to go to WD, but not for removing features. Removing a new CR was sufficient. It lets us mark the whole CSS2 section as informative and then add informative reference to CSS 3 to give impl guidance. So welcome to syntax and if you're impl you have to go here. Remaining text is informative because it's out of date. 16:32:53 that would work for me! 16:33:04 fantasai, tantek: and presumably Appendix G 16:33:10 * TabAtkins 16:33:12 tantek, And the "go to FPWD" option isn't, I believe, part of the Edited/Amended Recommendation process -- it seems to be for a new recommendation 16:33:19 tantek: I think we can do that and continue with our work mode. Assuming florian and TabAtkins are good with that, fantasai does that sound good to you? 16:33:33 florian: My initial proposal was gut the section, but I updated to do exactly what you said. 16:33:48 TabAtkins: I'm okay if it's there if it's in some big colored box to show it's wrong. 16:33:52 fantasai: Section? 16:34:07 TabAtkins: Appendix G grammar. And a chapter that defined tokenization. 16:34:18 gsnedders: Chapter 4.1 and 4.2 16:34:38 gsnedders: Values section I think we still want. 16:34:40 tantek: I think not. 16:34:59 gsnedders: 4.3 values is replaced by values & units. So it's just 4.1, 4.2 and 4.4 16:35:03 florian: And appendix G 16:35:06 gsnedders: Yes. 16:35:24 florian: Turn all of that into notes and add an intro note that it's for reference but known as not fully correct. 16:35:33 fantasai: Why appendix G? I udnerstand the 4.x 16:35:45 TabAtkins: It's a big set of grammar defined in terms of tokenization. 16:36:00 fantasai: It's not error handling It's a valid CSS2 doc conforms to this. 16:36:12 TabAtkins: There are some that don't because changes to CSS2 that's not backwards compat. 16:36:15 fantasai: Example? 16:36:19 q? 16:36:31 TabAtkins: URL syntax changed. You can conform to CSS grammar... 16:36:43 fantasai: Exmpale of URL that's valid now and wasn't before. 16:36:51 "This appendix is non-normative. " 16:37:04 florian: Appendix G states it's non-normative but section 4 refers to appendix G as normative. 16:37:07 gsnedders: Yes, 4.1 16:37:14 florian: [reads] 16:37:35 tantek: Assuming we make 4.1 informative that becomes informative and it's fixed. We don't have to touch G. 16:37:43 florian: Just adding a note on top is nice to do. 16:37:50 TabAtkins: Yes, I'd recommend a note. 16:37:54 +1 to note 16:38:02 gsnedders: If we believe G is capricisious we shoudl remove 16:38:32 astearns: Prop is take 4.1, 4.2 and 4.4, change them to informative notes, and add notes to those sections + appendix G showing where the newer work is being done. Those are informative notes. 16:38:36 florian: Agree. 16:38:39 TabAtkins: Fine with that 16:38:43 astearns: Objections? 16:38:49 fine by me 16:38:55 tantek: Clarify that references to CSS 3 syntax are informative and I"m good. 16:39:11 astearns: Yes, that's the last clause. "Those" being link to newer work. 16:39:24 fantasai: WE might want to tweak intro text in chapter 4. 16:39:29 tantek: That's editoral. 16:39:34 fantasai: I still want an example 16:39:40 TabAtkins: DOn't have one off the top of my head. 16:39:55 astearns: Given you wanted the example as to why we want to change G and we're not do you need it? 16:39:59 fantasai: http://w3c-test.org/css/CSS2/syntax/uri-013.xht 16:40:01 fantasai: Not to resolve. Want the example. 16:40:10 s/Want/Still/ 16:40:12 astearns: Obj? 16:40:13 s/example/example though/ 16:40:15 fantasai: that passes per 2.1 and fails per Syntax, AFAIK 16:40:30 gsnedders, that's error-handling 16:40:42 fantasai: I haven't looked at that test in a long while :) 16:40:43 gsnedders, it's not supposed to be a valid document. 16:40:44 Example that fails 2.1 and passes Syntax: url("foo.txt" more-tokens-here) 16:40:46 github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2224 16:40:53 RESOLVED: take 4.1, 4.2 and 4.4, change them to informative notes, and add notes to those sections + appendix G showing where the newer work is being done. Links to newer works are informative notes. 16:40:55 🎉 16:40:56 TabAtkins, that's invalid in CSS2 regardless 16:41:02 TabAtkins, it's another error-handlign example 16:41:05 Topic: end 16:41:07 nainar has joined #css 16:41:12 astearns: Back to sci notation? 16:41:22 tantek: I think it's still open. 16:41:30 florian: There's a previous resolution. 16:41:39 Topic: Should we add scientific notation to CSS 2.1? 16:41:46 github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2542 16:41:46 TabAtkins, the error-handling is different in css-syntax-3, but it's not valid in L3 (yet) nor in L2. 16:41:53 astearns: objections to... 16:42:02 gsnedders: Previous resolution was in 2016. [reads] 16:42:21 tantek: There was unintended consiquence. Previous to that we resolved no new features. 16:42:35 "RESOLVED: Remove CSS grammar section in CSS 2.2 and have a pointer to CSS syntax", 2016-10-12 16:42:45 (previous resolution) 16:42:51 astearns: prop: We are not linking normatively to syntax. We will informatively link to syntax and thus no new syntax added to 2.1 incl sci notation 16:43:11 tantek: If we're trying to get to point that we normatively reference syntax 3 we need to solve for this. 16:43:20 TabAtkins: I'm willing to promise we won't nromatively reference from 2.1 16:43:24 tantek: Not a goal? 16:43:30 Karen has joined #css 16:43:31 TabAtkins: NO, 2.1 doesn't have to care about definition 16:43:46 tantek: Then I'd like to add a note stating that css3 has a new feature impl should be aware of. 16:43:58 seems like you can't hear me? 16:44:06 fantasai: That should be in syntax spec. Changes. Other than we re-wrote error handling we added this. 16:44:07 https://drafts.csswg.org/css-syntax-3/#changes-css21 16:44:11 ChrisL: Makes sense, changes from 2.1 16:44:16 fantasai: It's here ^ 16:44:32 astearns: dbaron can you type into IRC? 16:44:32 I think the note we added in the previous resolution should say 16:44:55 that css-syntax adds a new feature, scientific notation, that was not a feature in level 2. 16:44:59 (and that should just be a note) 16:45:02 tantek: I'm okay resolve no changes but I'd like to leave the issue open until we get a CR. I'd like to leave this open. Resolve, leave the issue open and not it's pending successful CR. 16:45:09 astearns: [reads dbaron ] 16:45:28 astearns: I'm thinking it should be more general that CSS sytnax adds at least 1 new feature that's not in L2. 16:45:32 sounds good, Alan 16:45:32 can link to CHanges section :) 16:46:02 astearns: Prop: WE add a note to css 2.1 noting the presence of at least one new feature in the informative reference. We intend not to add any new features to CSS2. 16:46:03 RachelNabors has joined #css 16:46:04 I have another call coming up, have to drop out now, sorry. 16:46:11 tantek: I like linking to CSS 3 syntax changes section 16:46:14 astearns: Obj? 16:46:30 RESOLVED: We add a note to CSS 2.1 noting the presence of at least one new feature in the informative reference. We intend not to add any new features to CSS2. 16:46:37 Topic: Anchors changed in CSS 2 in-place edit in 2016 16:46:44 github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2551 16:47:05 gsnedders: When css 2.1 was edited in place in 2016 all anchors were changed. This is bad. 16:47:22 facepalm on edited-in-place 16:47:29 gsnedders: Because it was an in place edit the old 2011 URLs point to the 2016 copy of the spec. Ther'es noting in TR space with old anchors. 16:47:37 q+ 16:47:44 gsnedders: Question is do we want the pre or post 2016 anchors when we edit. 16:47:47 florian: Pre or both 16:48:00 ChrisL: Pre. Old links will be to pre ones. We should pretend this didn't happen. 16:48:04 florian: Both in case new links. 16:48:09 TabAtkins: Agree. both is easy. 16:48:12 ChrisL: Is it? 16:48:16 gsnedders: Not too bad 16:48:20 ChrisL: Messy, but okay. 16:48:26 gsnedders: Pre is easy 16:48:30 tantek: Editors prefer pre 16:48:38 gsnedders: I think we should look at how hard for both. 16:48:59 florian: I suspect most newer links might be ones we made from bikeshed so if can scan draft for new links nad fix that's okay. 16:49:05 tantek: That's the theory 16:49:09 I think whatever we do, we should publicly archive the two copies of the spec rather than just overwriting. 16:49:11 TabAtkins: A lot of 2.1 links ar emanual. 16:49:20 fantasai: Are all links broken? Looks like not all. 16:49:34 fantasai: When we link to 2.1 we do to section headings and those were manual choosen IDs. 16:49:41 florian: There's links to definitions. 16:49:49 gsnedders: Only manually spec ones ahve not changed. 16:49:59 fantasai: We rarely link to those so revert should be fine. 16:50:09 fantasai: Most links have been to section headings. 16:50:28 fantasai: 2.1 didn't have rigerous mark up or auto cross references so I think it's safe to revert. 16:50:35 plinss: True for test links? 16:50:42 fantasai: prop def I'm guessing didn't change. 16:50:51 florian: I don't think there's a lot of new 2.1 tests since 2016. 16:51:12 florian: Prop a handful of places but edit those is easier then reference both. 16:51:22 yes please 16:51:23 fantasai: prop def & section headings have not changed. 16:51:51 astearns: If we rever that's a statement on IRC from dbaron that we should publically archieve a copy of the spec with these links. Will we have that? 16:52:04 ChrisL: Dated version was edited in place which should never have been done. 16:52:12 tantek: We're undoing damage to dated version. 16:52:21 gsnedders: 2011 dated will have 2016 anchors. 16:52:24 florian: Not ideal. 16:52:34 gsnedders: So we edit in place the 2011 to undo the anchors change? 16:52:48 tantek: Yes. Becaues they were around from 2011-2016 and referenced more. 16:53:15 fantasai: You might...if you want a copy of 2016 anchors then maybe ChrisL can you get exception to normal process and get 2016 date that corrisponds. 16:53:21 ChrisL: Mgith be. No promise. 16:53:30 fantasai: In that case you can copy and then revert. 16:53:34 q? 16:53:41 /TR/REC-css2-2016-broken/ 16:53:45 astearns: 3 things. 1st is take current draft and revert to 2011 anchors. Obj? 16:53:46 :) 16:53:49 yes that ChrisL 16:53:55 RESOLVED: take current draft and revert to 2011 anchors. 16:53:57 ChrisL, do you still need to be on the queue? 16:54:04 q- 16:54:04 astearns: take dated 2011 draft and revert link changes. 16:54:07 astearns: Obj? 16:54:13 gsnedders: draft or rec? 16:54:17 astearns: 2011 dated rec 16:54:37 RESOLVED: take dated 2011 rec and revert link changes. 16:54:43 ChrisL: /TR/REC-css2-2016-fragged/ 16:54:48 astearns: 3rd is produce a 2016 dated doc that retains those links. 16:55:00 gsnedders: Change 2011 back to original copy? 16:55:03 ChrisL: Think so. 16:55:10 florian: difference other then link? 16:55:28 gsnedders: Notice that we're working on other things, changes to process that effect PDF copy. 16:55:34 dbaron: Big obsoletion notice? 16:55:39 gsnedders: That's the big 2016 change. 16:55:43 florian: Want to keep that. 16:55:51 gsnedders: Add fixup.js that eerything else uses. 16:55:53 ChrisL: Yes. 16:56:11 gsnedders: Other small editorial changes made in 2016, but very minor. 16:56:14 ChrisL: Why changes made? 16:56:30 gsnedders: There's a min-height that in 2011 cross-ref to height and now it's correct. 16:56:41 ChrisL: Fixing broken link. I'd like to keep if can. 16:56:45 liam has joined #css 16:56:52 ChrisL: Revert, add js, patch in small editorial fix ups? 16:56:56 gsnedders: sure. 16:57:02 astearns: Preference to 2011? 16:57:06 ChrisL: 2016 dated. 16:57:19 ChrisL: 2011 should also have js added. 16:57:52 florian: Slightly confused. If adding 2016 dated I thought goal was preserve the new links. If it's later then 2011 the fixed is hidden by broken. Useful? 16:58:05 tantek: A new 2016 dated version will have 0 links so it doesn't matter fragments. 16:58:08 florian: New [missed] 16:58:16 gsnedders: Depends where /cc2 goes 16:58:24 s/cc2/CSS2/ 16:58:25 tantek: We won't link /css2 to that. 16:58:39 tantek: It's keep an archival copy. Not refer to that as latest. 16:59:00 florian: Okay with it under assumption that not latest can be where the undated link goes. If that's not possible then no. 16:59:15 dbaron: It wasn't a request to have it in TR space, but somewhere so you can figure out where a link went. 16:59:26 fantasai: I think having it in TR space is okay and you don't link to it. 16:59:38 astearns: Might be easier in draft space then deal with TR publication 16:59:51 fantasai: Leave it to ChrisL because it's much easier for him to do that. 16:59:57 he just has to convince webmaster to let him :) 17:00:06 florian: Can we resolve on havig an archival copy on TR or on drafts depending on ease? 17:00:20 ChrisL: Make sure there's good minutes and I'll discuss all of this with plh 17:00:43 proposal: http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607 has fixup.js and the original pre-2016 links 17:01:04 astearns: WE want a dated 2011 document with the js that says it's old and with the original links. We also want a 2016 dated document witht he original links and all the changes that went into 2016. And we want a dated doc somewhere that isn't the latest and has the weird links for posterity 17:01:11 astearns: Correct? 17:01:27 porposal: http://www.w3.org/TR/TR/2016/REC-CSS2-20160412/ is what is currently at http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607 17:01:36 florian: Seems acceptable. DOn't know if we need 11 and 16 on TR. What you said is okay. 17:01:44 proposal: /TR/CSS2/ redirects to http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607 17:01:59 fantasai: I think what gsnedders said is more sensible. WE just have 2011 draft restored and a copy of 2016 somewhere. 17:02:08 fantasai: I'd resolve on gsnedders in IRC 17:02:22 astearns: Is http://www.w3.org/TR/TR/2016/REC-CSS2-20160412/ is what is currently at http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607 enough for you? 17:02:24 ChrisL: Yes. 17:02:53 tantek: If you want to add a warning to 2016 TR vresion noting fragments are different, that's okay. 17:03:24 rrsagent, here 17:03:24 See https://www.w3.org/2018/04/25-css-irc#T17-03-24 17:03:26 RESOLVED: http://www.w3.org/TR/TR/2016/REC-CSS2-20160412/ is what is currently at http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607 and /TR/CSS2/ redirects to http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607 and ChrisL may add a warning note about the 2016 links as he sees necessary 17:03:27 smfr has left #css 17:03:30 Topic: end 17:03:32 https://gist.githubusercontent.com/gsnedders/56d1415b998c1e6b0291316bc93b5a57/raw/5c1632be167de430f3917df7acdb75cb1165e758/2011-new-anchors-2016.diff is a complete diff of 2011 to 2016 excluding the anchor changes 17:03:56 rrsagent, make minutes 17:03:56 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/04/25-css-minutes.html ChrisL 17:06:56 trackbot, end meeting 17:06:56 Zakim, list attendees 17:06:56 As of this point the attendees have been dael, bdc, astearns, rachelandrew, dauwhe, florian, smfr, melanierichards, antenna, dbaron, Rossen_, antonp, tgraham, Vlad, gsnedders, 17:06:59 ... garrett, plinss, krit, jensimmons, alex_antennahouse, TabAtkins, tantek, majidvp 17:07:04 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 17:07:04 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/04/25-css-minutes.html trackbot 17:07:05 RRSAgent, bye 17:07:05 I see no action items