<scribe> ScribeNick: dael
Rossen_: Let's start at
9:02PT
... Let's get started
... As usual, I wanted to call for any extra agenda items
github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3925
fantasai: It was pointed out nobody impl :has not even in query selection. Spec should align with reality and not say you can use it. it is impl in Prince XML so maybe needs to stay in spec but scope to PDF renderers
florian: I think we discussed in the past and wanted to ban it from PDF engines as well b/c worry it would creep out of that narrow use case and we'd be stuck for compat reasons. Or something along those lines. Couldn't find minutes
fantasai: We did. And that's why it explicitly says shouldn't be used in CSS but reality is that's not what's happening
Rossen_: If this is reality than
what fantasai suggested makes sense
... Any additional comments or challenges to this?
florian: Okay changing .querySelector but not sure about PDF render
fantasai: Reused a definition about static not dynamic
florian: Does [list of things] count?
fantasai: Up to impl if it counts
Rossen_: It is impl specific
fantasai: If you don't like this division either we remove and people are non-conforment or we convince more people to impl. So what do you want to do?
florian: Since existing impl violates spec about if they should impl and if we put a feature in the spec saying this is a thing you may or may not want to impl sure. I don't know if static render definition makes a difference, but if browsers aren't worried about creeping out sure
dauwhe: Other instances of infections creeping out?
florian: Intentionally yes, accidentaly not sure
dauwhe: Seems low risk
fantasai: It's not we dont' want
this in browsers, it's that no one has figured out how to do it
in a performant way.
... If a browser figures out how to do it we'd be happy
florian: Keep in spec, remove profile distinction, mark at risk
Rossen_: Have enough features not implemented, reducing that is a great goal. Lingering things in spec that's an idea that won't happen isn't good. There's history in github and repos that people could find. I'd move forward to drop now and if people want to make a case they will
<gregwhitworth> +1 to what Rossen_ said
bkardell_: Sorry, didn't have sound early in call. We added distinction between profiles b/c it could easily be impl in JS in theory. I think we hear people saying it doesn't add much, I disagree with that. Isn't the way the spec is written, I thought it was specifically because if a vendor wanted to experimentally impl in full profile that's okay. Is that not the case?
florian: Spec says browsersplease
don't do this. We didn't want someone to ship while others
didn't know how. If that was a good idea is sep. question, but
spec says must not impl in CSS< only JS.
... To Rossen_ point it's not just not going to happen, it's
not going to happen prob in browsers, but it is happening in
other vendors with the name. We put at risk, push to L5 if we
go to rec
Rossen_: Should we then spec other features in JS library?
florian: It's a feature we specced rendered by a CSS. Just not a browser
bkardell_: It's in jQuery for same reason, because it was in CSS when it was rewritten
florian: Maybe we go to rec with
2 impl, jQuery and Prince. A bit of a stretch
... I feel bad removing it after it's impl in several places
and freeing up the namespace doesn't sound nice.
<gregwhitworth> bkardell_: is that really the order of things, I thought jQuery had it prior to any spec text existing
fantasai: I think disingenuous to remove completely given there is an impl of something standardized. Seems like we only put things in spec if a browser impl but another non-browser impl isn't worthy. If this was webkit not Prince we wouldn't talk about drop
bkardell_: What if Webkit only did it for print stylsheets
fantasai: We be conforment to spec
bkardell_: I think florian just said it would violate current spec
florian: Yes b/c extra restriction
AmeliaBR: Question now is this whole idea of live vs snapshot profiles, is it impl anywhere? No one is impl things for .querySelector that's not for CSS. Only UA that does .has is as a css selctors. That part of spec needs reconsider, but what direct? .has is not in spec or drop the profile idea?
florian: I'd go with later and mark at-risk
fantasai: and optional
florian: I don't know what difference it makes but okay
fantasai: Means not required to conform
bkardell_: So Prince is in violation?
florian: Is now, but if we do this it wouldn't be
bkardell_: Can someone recap? Remove the profile notion and mark at risk and options?
<hober> fwiw i agree with rossen_, but i'm also okay with moving it from L4 to L5 as a compromise
fantasai: At risk makes it easier to remove later. It's a process thing. Optional means you can be conforment to module without doing this
AmeliaBR: It's separate module you can impl or not but it's tucked inside main selectors
fantasai: Yeah. When first did profiles there were many features, but now there's just this one
bkardell_: If someone impl for .querySelector only it's okay?
fantasai: Yes
bkardell_: And a print stylesheet or static processing engine that's okay?
fantasai: Yes
bkardell_: sgtm
Rossen_: Nearing consensus. Any other additional thoughts before we move this to L5 and mark at risk?
AmeliaBR: How is @supports selector supposed to work with selectors impl only in JS and not CSS. Separate issue.
florian: Another point. In past other proposed selectors such as focus-inside that were initially rejected by bodies because we have :has. We can rebuff with saying browsers don't do it. Can now with intent to impl
bkardell_: Begs the question of lots of documented use cases of possible withins that are solved by this. 100 withins is not wonderful thing
fantasai: I think we should
tackle that in separate issue
... There's various approaches we can take
<bkardell_> also sgtm to tackle in another issue
Rossen_: Agree. Objections to resolve by move this to L5 and mark at risk and optional
<bkardell_> +1 to leave in l4
fantasai: Leave in L4. It is impl. This isn't even CR yet. We're not trying to trim to 2 implementations yet.
florian: At risk is enough.
Rossen_: That's fine. Mark this as at risk and optional
RESOLUTION: Mark this as at risk and optional, remove profile
github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3659
Rossen_: gregwhitworth is IRC only, let's do this later
<dbaron> github: none
github: none
github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3869
fantasai: I summerized issue. No agreement on if tabs can hang at end of line. ONly use case is tab separated value files. No clear direction
florian: I was actioned to give examples and haven't. Agree with fantasai we agree on break spaces, but pre-wrap is tricky.
Rossen_: Remove from agenda until have test cases?
florian: May also want to do break-spaces
Rossen_: Let's look at everything
at once. Otherwise you might find some new evidence and we need
to re-open
... I'll remove agenda+
github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3440
Rossen_: Is koji on?
fantasai: If koji isn't we should defer. Maybe koji florian and I do a separate call. No clear idea of what we should do.
Rossen_: No issue with that. If you move the conversation and then we can come back either before F2F or at F2F.
florian: sgtm
github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1603
AmeliaBR: I didn't put this on the agenda, chris did. Is he on?
Rossen_: I don't see regrets, but he might still be on vacation
AmeliaBR: We talked about this at last F2F. We resolved some syntactic details about URL functions with modifiers. General consensus we should pursue harmonizing with HTML for image loading modifiers. Waiting on someone to sit down and write a proposal. I haven't done that. Not sure what Chris wanted to do on call
Rossen_: If we need to wait that's fine. I'll remove agenda+ so that it doesn't come back until it's ready.
github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3659
Rossen_: Don't know if gregwhitworth made it
gregwhitworth: I'm here
... This isn't my issue, but I dug into what I think this
person wanted that bg images weren't be loaded by lazyloading.
I'm not sure what this person wanted so I suggest we close
until more clarifiction. Chris pointed out there is already an
issue from AmeliaBR about modifiers. I'd close as dup and ask
for more details.
Rossen_: Close the issue back to the owner and ask for more details?
gregwhitworth: I pinged him and asked to clarify. I'd close as dup to the one Chris L referenced.
Rossen_: Any other members that
read or want to discuss this?
... If not we can do that
... No hearing takers. I'll clear up the labels and move the
issue back to the owner
fantasai: We discussed bracketed range notation at last F2F. TabAtkins and I folded that in last month. We need to republish. It's a CR
Rossen_: Sounds good.
florian: This new thing is arguably editorial. The bracket notation.
<fantasai> Chanes list https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values-3/#changes
Rossen_: Still want to have WG resolution
florian: Just that it's the lighter form or republication
<fantasai> New section is https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values-3/#numeric-ranges
Rossen_: Trying to gauge if people want time
AmeliaBR: I do have an open PR. Trusting that'll get integrated before republication
florian: Doesn't have to be before
AmeliaBR: It includes Values 3 edits. It's clean up on top of what fantasai pushed. Major ones are already on there.
Rossen_: Do you have PR?
AmeliaBR: #3894
<AmeliaBR> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/3894
fantasai: Happy to add in the changes you're suggesting, but I will want to hold off on merging changes to other specs until after Values 3 is published.
Rossen_: Values 3 changes are straightforward.
<fantasai> Amelia's changes https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/3894/files#diff-c3798e248ee6e7eeb80c7b12f053a5de
<fantasai> Just Editorial fixes
AmeliaBR: My changes are minor. fantasai already merged major changes into ED which introduce new syntax. Is definiting a new sytax with no normative effects on impl is that sufficient to count as editorial change for CR
fantasai: Good question
Rossen_: Not sure
AmeliaBR: florian, does this count as editorial where we define new syntax but it has no normative impact requirements.
florian: I don't think process is clear. Probably isn't editorial
fantasai: Change to spec convention of how they describe, but doesn't change definition
florian: Definition of what's
editorial is quite limited and probably this isn't under it.
Borderline probably not editorial.
... There's 2 categories of what's editorial, Markup and
titles/grammatical error but correcting clarification is not
editorial. I think that's all that editorial
bkardell_: Is this the second?
florian: It's not a bug in an example
bkardell_: Clarifying.
florian: Clarifying non-ambig. You'd have to make the argument it's not obvious
fantasai: I don't think we care. If it's REC might be worth quibbling, updating a REC requires like three publications and an AC vote. It's CR let's go through normal process.
Rossen_: [missed]
hober: If this were a change in webIDL it's not a hard question
florian: Same kind of question
<florian> +1 to fantasai, let's just do it.
hober: Trying to say it is a change that impacts specs that depend on it. I think it's okay that it's not editorial
Rossen_: Seems to be agreement
around that
... Anyone need additional time to review? Or we can
resolve
... Objections on Republish CR of Values 3
florian: With AmeliaBR's PR?
Rossen_: Yes since AmeliaBR PR doesn't introduce anything that changes the way this would be republished.
AmeliaBR: And if fantasai wants to cherry pick markup fixes that's fine.
Rossen_: I'm sure fantasai will
figure it out.
... Objections?
RESOLUTION: Republish CR of Values 3
<florian> I have reviewed the multicol part of that PR, that too can be landed
Rossen_: fantasai you'll handle this?
fantasai: Yes, I can
dbaron: Please make sure you have
listed yourself as an attendee and if you're attending
Houdini
... If you have dietary requirements please email me.
Rossen_: Should we add a column for that on the wiki?
dbaron: I've got a bunch in emails so I'd prefer that.
bkardell_: How would you like us to err on maybe attending
dbaron: Put yourself on the list and put you're a maybe.
<dbaron> https://wiki.csswg.org/planning/toronto-2019
Rossen_: Thanks dbaron. Please
add yourself if you haven't
... Anything else?
Rossen_: Everyone gets back 20 minutes. Thank you
<Rossen_> trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154 of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/quibbling/quibbling, updating a REC requires like three publications and an AC vote/ Succeeded: s/this is change/this were a change/ Default Present: dauwhe, antonp, Rossen_, smfr, dael, plinss, tgraham, oriol, melanierichards, florian, dbaron, fantasai, bkardell_, AmeliaBR Present: dauwhe antonp Rossen_ smfr dael plinss tgraham oriol melanierichards florian dbaron fantasai bkardell_ AmeliaBR Found ScribeNick: dael Inferring Scribes: dael WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 15 May 2019 People with action items: WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]