Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Working Group Teleconference

15 May 2019


dauwhe, antonp, Rossen_, smfr, dael, plinss, tgraham, oriol, melanierichards, florian, dbaron, fantasai, bkardell_, AmeliaBR


<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

Rescope :has to static CSS rather than .querySelector

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

pre-wrap and tabs at the end of the line

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+

When to/not to include preserved trailing spaces

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

Define crossorigin, preload and async URL modifiers

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


republish Values 3

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

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Mark this as at risk and optional, remove profile
  2. Republish CR of Values 3
[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.154 (CVS log)
$Date: 2019/05/15 16:41:41 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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]