16:57:28 RRSAgent has joined #css 16:57:28 logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/01/16-css-irc 16:57:30 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:57:30 Zakim has joined #css 16:57:32 Meeting: Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Working Group Teleconference 16:57:32 Date: 16 January 2019 16:57:54 Rossen_ has joined #css 16:57:58 bdc has joined #css 16:58:17 trackbot, start meeting 16:58:20 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:58:23 Meeting: Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Working Group Teleconference 16:58:23 Date: 16 January 2019 16:58:36 present+ dael 16:58:40 ScribeNick: dael 16:58:51 present+ 16:58:52 ericwilligers has joined #css 16:59:08 present+ 16:59:10 present+ 16:59:11 present+ 16:59:15 present+ 16:59:35 present+ 16:59:53 jensimmons has joined #css 17:00:04 nigel has joined #css 17:00:07 smfr has joined #css 17:00:09 present+ 17:00:20 present+ 17:00:45 present+ 17:01:05 present+ 17:01:07 present+ 17:01:23 Rossen_: Let's give it one more minute and we'll start 17:01:25 chris has joined #css 17:01:34 present+ 17:01:47 Present+ Nigel 17:02:12 Rossen_: Let's go ahead and get started 17:02:23 present+ 17:02:29 Rossen_: Welcome. As usual, the first item is a call for additional items or changes you would like made to the agenda 17:02:32 dydz has joined #css 17:02:42 present+ 17:02:54 Rossen_: I did have one F2F question. 17:03:30 Rossen_: Thanks to those who added themselves to the wiki. If you haven't done so, please do. It will give organizers an idea of who is coming. It also gives you a chance to add items to the agenda if they're not tagged in github 17:03:59 Rossen_: Question I had was, we had decided there would be no separate Houdini date. That was decided during TPAC. 17:04:14 Rossen_: I wanted to do an additional check to make sure this hasn't changed. Still good with that? 17:04:47 TabAtkins: No intention of doing it. I thought we'd do a separate track for Houdini during something like Text if it's necessary. We do not have enough topics to warrant a full day 17:04:55 Topic: More WPT reviewers needed 17:05:03 github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3496 17:05:17 rachelandrew has joined #css 17:05:30 ericwilligers: I wanted to bring attention, there are a few specs with essentially no reviewers. Some people may be listed but don't check their review emails. 17:05:32 present + 17:05:55 antenna has joined #css 17:06:00 ericwilligers: It would be helpful if more people volunteered. I can get Blink people to review, but that's not available to everyone. More people should be able to submit tests without going through a browser 17:06:02 tantek has joined #css 17:06:27 Rossen_: In general we've had this discussion many times in the past. Both tests and test reviewers have been a struggle to come about. 17:06:39 Rossen_: Was there anything you were doing to gather external contributions 17:06:44 Present+ 17:06:52 ericwilligers: No. This is tests I wrote that I thought it unfortunate no one is reviewing 17:07:25 gsnedders: It's notable that CSSWG specs are much harder to get review than any other spec. People who work on layout aren't interacting with wpt the way other groups are. Be interested to know reasons 17:07:31 present+ 17:07:43 chris: I've tried to review tests. I share ericwilligers frustration. I'l submit tests and they sit 17:07:44 present+ 17:08:04 dbaron: I review tests when I have time, but I think it may be more useful to bug individuals then bug the whole WG for reviews 17:08:13 ericwilligers: I spec a person and nothing happened 17:08:32 dbaron: Some of us have hundreds of thigns in github queues. If you want me to review something, send an email 17:08:40 ericwilligers: That's all for this issue, thanks 17:08:42 present+ 17:08:57 Last time this topic came up, the larger problem of WPT being poorly documented (processes etc.) was the key takeaway 17:09:07 pretty sure there was an issue filed too 17:09:34 Rossen_: Than you for bringing it to attention again. For us to be successful as a WG and making sure standards are pushed through, tests are a huge part. If anyone submits tests, please be accomodating. I'm bad at following all repo build up, but I try and respond to direct emails 17:09:35 tantek: that doesn't explain the disparity between CSS and pretty much every other group, though 17:09:41 Rossen_: Let's see if we can drain that queue 17:09:48 Topic: 2018 Snapshot Rough Inteorp List 17:10:01 Rossen_: Is fantasai on? 17:10:06 gsnedders, There may be issues with difficulty of mapping tests to engineering areas, and also things specific to not liking the wpt reftest setup 17:10:10 chris: 2018 or 2019? 2018 has been published 17:10:18 Rossen_: I'll paste the mail thread 17:10:35 Rossen_: It is 2018 unless it was a mistype in the title 17:10:37 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2018OctDec/0179.html 17:10:52 given that it's 2019 now, we should probably be looking to make changes to 2019 17:10:57 [note: link is member only] 17:10:59 CSS Snapshot 2018 W3C Working Group Note, 15 November 2018 17:11:07 Rossen_: It was 2018 snapshot publication 17:11:47 fantasai: These are on 2018. We didn't put transforms in 2018 and it seems it should be there 17:11:49 ericwilligers, btw, I think it may be more useful to bring up specific specs that are short of reviewers or where they're not responding to both github requests and emails than to bring up the topic generally 17:11:59 present+ 17:12:01 seems a bit late tbh. 17:12:20 fantasai: Transforms didn't make it b/c it hit CR right after we published. But spec is stable and there's impl and interop there. 17:12:58 fantasai: Second issue was to move grid not in the main line of the snapshot because spec hasn't been that level of stable. We'd put it in a note with something like Animations to say spec isn't quite there. 17:13:13 chris: What's point of doing that? We're in 2019 and we had WG consensus grid would be in 17:13:15 fantasai: We didn't 17:13:24 florian: That was my mistake and I put it in the wrong category 17:13:31 chris: Worth republishing to back it down? 17:13:47 Transforms Level 1 is still published as a WD, not CR. Is that a mistake? https://www.w3.org/TR/css3-transforms/ 17:14:07 fantasai: epub specs have started to rely on snapshots. We might want to rethink what snapshot is, but these are specs not rec but only because there's a few bugs. But they're almost there. 17:14:11 chris: Grid isn't almost there? 17:14:28 fantasai: If you look at state of spec in 2018 we got a lot of issues. It'll get there in 2019. 17:14:31 florian: Is it there now? 17:14:56 fantasai: No. There are a bunch of open issues. When they're resolved and we republish and impl are up to date 17:15:11 chris: I worry about mixed messages. When do we plan to publish 2019? 17:15:44 chris: If we're going to do it in a couple of months not worthwhile. We ought to be diong 2019 snapshot in spring 2019 17:15:49 fantasai: I'll do the publishing 17:15:53 chris: Adding a note is easy 17:16:40 Rossen_: Do we want to add CSS transforms and update the 2018 snapshot for those taking dependency on it? The snapshot will retroactively present a more realistic picture. Or chris do you object to that? 17:16:55 chris: Not objecting, good either way. Don't want to send mixed messages or incorrect ones 17:17:04 Rossen_: Additional feedback from the group? 17:17:25 nigel: I'd prioritize fixing incorrect statements over inconsistant messages. Incorrect information is more dangerous 17:17:32 Rossen_: That's a +1 for adding it 17:17:37 +1 to adding it 17:17:37 Rossen_: Anything else? 17:17:46 Rossen_: Obj to add CSS Transforms to the 2018 Snapshot? 17:17:53 RESOLVED: add CSS Transforms to the 2018 Snapshot 17:18:07 Rossen_: fantasai back to you, there were more questions 17:18:29 Rossen_: Grid. do we need to make a change? 17:18:33 florian: I screwed up, let's fix it 17:19:15 fantasai: Grid was supposed to be in the bucket of notes about specs that are widely deployed but not as stable. I understood grid would be in that category, not the main. I'm asking to move it into that position 17:19:16 FWIW I am for including Grid since it has usable implementation interop, and to make that clear, despite any spec thrash 17:19:42 fantasai: We have several specs which are widely deployed but need more bug fixing. THey're listed in a different section 17:19:53 florian: It is what we resolved, I implemented it incorrectly 17:19:56 Link to current editor's draft of snapshot? 17:20:12 Rossen_: Since we're going to update the snapshot, what is the ask? You want to move it? 17:20:17 fantasai: From stable to rough interop 17:20:24 Rossen_: Feedback from WG on this? 17:20:31 I'm not going to nitpick on section. Happy that it's included 17:20:41 Rossen_: Obj to moving Grid from stable to rough interop? 17:20:51 RESOLVED: move Grid from stable to rough interop in 2018 snapshot 17:21:05 Rossen_: Resolution to republish snapshot? 17:21:08 fantasai: Yes, please 17:21:25 Rossen_: One more. Once these edits have been completed republish 2018 snapshot 17:21:34 RESOLVED: Once these edits have been completed republish 2018 snapshot 17:21:41 Topic: How should a selected spelling error be painted? 17:21:47 github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2850 17:22:27 Rossen_: fantasai or AmeliaBR can you summarize? 17:22:43 fantasai: Let's see where we're at 17:22:54 florian: I thought semi reviewed and waiting for additional feedback 17:22:56 fantasai: Yeah 17:23:02 I'm not sure there's much more to discuss. Needs proposed text. 17:23:10 florian: I think agenda+ was left on rather then added 17:23:16 Rossen_: Bot didn't resolve? 17:23:27 the bot only removes agenda+ when there's a resolution, btw 17:23:54 Daniel: I had a chance to digest this. We described in terms of currentColor 17:24:18 Daniel: I wrote a comment, so to restate. currentColor would solve this and for all color properties, but not for caret and text shadow 17:24:29 Daniel: In 2.2 of the same spec we solved this for the first letter 17:25:15 fantasai: first letter is different kind of psuedo element. It inherits fundimentally through the tree. What we're doing for selection, a selection for a span inherits from the p, not the span. That has to happen for all the different properties that inherit 17:25:23 Daniel: I read 2.2 and how it's impl in webkit 17:25:30 fantasai: Webkit impl isn't like any other browser 17:25:37 Daniel: I like webkit where you cascade and then inherit 17:26:05 fantasai: The thing currently impl, if you have selections like

::selection and inside the p you have a span, you lose the selection over the span 17:26:09 Daniel:Currently in webkit? 17:26:14 fantasai: That's in every other browser 17:26:47 Daniel: That doesn't happen. I could be wrong, but in my memory of code that's not what happens. For the span...we do the cascade, find the parent with the section...right now we do the cascade 17:27:02 testcase his is some emphasized tex 17:27:06 http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%0A