15:57:42 RRSAgent has joined #css 15:57:42 logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/07/17-css-irc 15:57:44 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:57:44 Zakim has joined #css 15:57:46 Meeting: Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Working Group Teleconference 15:57:46 Date: 17 July 2019 15:58:38 smfr has joined #css 15:58:55 Rossen_ has joined #css 15:59:56 present+ 16:00:19 AmeliaBR has joined #css 16:00:20 present_ 16:00:23 present+ 16:00:30 present+ 16:00:35 present+ 16:00:38 present+ 16:00:42 ScribeNick: dael 16:00:52 present+ 16:01:06 present+ 16:01:15 present+ 16:02:04 present+ 16:02:11 present+ 16:02:22 present+ 16:02:23 nigel has joined #css 16:02:29 Present+ antonp 16:02:31 astearns: Looks like almost enough people. We'll wait another minute or so 16:02:31 ACTION fantasai Send out publication announcements... 16:02:32 Created ACTION-882 - Send out publication announcements... [on Elika Etemad - due 2019-07-24]. 16:02:51 bradk has joined #css 16:03:25 astearns: We should get started 16:03:28 Happy world emoji day 16:03:32 astearns: Anything to add or change about the agenda? 16:04:08 astearns: Do we have the people to discuss https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4059#issuecomment-510148922 16:04:15 astearns: Particularly is myles on? 16:04:26 astearns: Lets skip until we get myles 16:04:34 Topic: text-decoration-width claims to be a sub-property of text-decoration, but text-decoration disagrees. 16:04:42 github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3993 16:04:49 astearns: emilio added this and fantasai commented. 16:04:53 astearns: Anything we need to do? 16:05:06 fantasai: Not unless someone disagrees with making it a sub property 16:05:12  🌎 📆 16:05:19 astearns: I have not read through the text. Is there a spec change? 16:05:28 astearns: I'm fine with fantasai's comment, updating the spec would be nice 16:05:31 present+ 16:05:47 Present+ 16:05:50 fantasai: Hang up is text-decor L3 text isn't folded into L4. I need to cross check before I copy over and merge in. L4 is basically a diff spec atm 16:05:53 present+ 16:05:59 myles_ has joined #css 16:06:02 astearns: So we'll close this as soon as you cross check and poss. update spec 16:06:05 fantasai: Yeah 16:06:15 astearns: Any disagreement with that course of action? 16:06:17 ??: nope 16:06:22 astearns: Let's leave it at that. 16:06:29 Topic: pre-wrap and tabs at the end of the line 16:06:37 github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3869#issuecomment-509811620 16:06:41 astearns: florian added example 16:07:01 florian: 2 parts to the discussion. one is hardly discussed and non-controversial. Other was and needed example 16:07:23 florian: The hardly discussed is just like spaces tabs do not hang and you can break between. Mentioned in issue and no one pushed back. 16:07:39 florian: I'd like to resolve on that before going to whitespace prewrap 16:07:45 astearns: Treat tabs the same as issues for this? 16:07:54 present+ 16:07:55 for break-spaces, right? 16:07:59 florian: They can't hang and you can wrap between two consecutive tabs 16:08:11 astearns: Tabs do not hang and you can break between for whitespace: break spaces 16:08:15 astearns: Objections? 16:08:18 s/break spaces/break-spaces/ 16:08:29 RESOLVED: Tabs do not hang and you can break between for whitespace: break-spaces 16:08:40 s/whitespace/white-space/ 16:08:42 florian: Now what happens with tabs at end of line with whitespace-prewrap 16:09:05 florian: Example in document with line empty with tabs at end. What happens if line is too short? 16:09:19 florian: First is what line is long enough, second is when tab hangs. 16:09:48 florian: If you disallow hanging and disallow breaking between tabs you get second rendoring. 3rd is disallow hanging but allow breaking between tabs. No one does 3rd, browsers are split between first 2. 16:10:12 florian: I don't have a strong preference. Weak for option 3 which no one does. But we should try and align on something. Would want to hear if anyone has preference. 16:10:14 Present+ Nigel 16:10:23 florian: Questions on example? Thoughts on why one is preferable? 16:10:47 astearns: I don't have much of a preference. Not sure the 3rd is preferable either 16:10:57 astearns: I don't know why you have weak preference for that 16:11:10 dbaron: Drawing in example assumes tab stop lines up with end of container. 16:11:51 florian: I could be a different length, that's correct. I have a line length of 16 in this example. If you did 17 for example line breaking position wouldn't change in any example but you'd have empty space at end of it. 16:12:07 fantasai: Only difference visually is container is slight wider, but otherwise render same 16:12:18 tantek has joined #css 16:12:20 dbaron: Complexity with not line up is you would also have to decide if can break in middle of tab 16:12:26 present+ 16:12:32 florian: I assumed you could not, but fair enough. it renders as a shift not a character. 16:13:13 dbaron: You'd have to decide if you have tab stop at beginning/end of line. If you don't you can break in middle of tab. If you don't have tab stop and your next position is early in next line but not start; I guess it doesn't matter if tab is on first line or part on each line 16:13:30 fantasai: Tab stop is at beginning of line, but not end of line unless lines up with a multiple of 8 spaces from start of the line 16:14:15 florian: If we don't have a use case driven preference we can ask the web author folks to fish for one. We have split between browsers now. We can ask who is easier to change. 16:14:32 florian: Going by use case would be better. Haven't ID'ed any. Should we draw in rachelandrew or jensimmons ? 16:14:45 dbaron: THis feel obsure to me. 16:14:48 florian: it does 16:14:59 astearns: Could resolve on behavior 1 since we have 2 engines doing it 16:15:30 florian: Yeah...not particular reason to think behavior 1 is terrible so I'm okay with that. It is similar to what happens to spaces in white-space:pre-wrap. That implies FF has to change. 16:15:43 dbaron: I think consistancy with spaces is reasonable thing. I don't have strong opinions. 16:15:49 florian: Suspect any impl difficulty? 16:15:52 dbaron: Hard to say 16:16:08 astearns: Main difficulty is reason to make the change. I could just be a bug in FF forever 16:16:12 is there any way to apply the principle of least surprise here? 16:16:25 all other things being equal? 16:16:31 myles_: Engines have special case for tabs. IT'll be a slightly smaller or larger special case then it would have been. Picking an option is more important then which 16:16:56 florian: And as to the point about no rush to fix I think this will be low in priority, but there will eventually be a lump of bugs to fix and this will be in. 16:17:15 astearns: tantek asked in IRC: [reads]. One of the problems is no one has strong opinion on actual expectation 16:17:30 florian: Being consistent with spaces goes slightly to least surprise. If you know one you know the other 16:17:48 astearns: Sounds like we are driving toward a preference for the first option since consistent with spaces 16:17:52 florian: Right, the tabs hang 16:17:57 astearns: In which? 16:18:11 astearns: Prop: for white-space:pre-wrap tabs hang like spaces do 16:18:18 astearns: Objections? 16:18:18 that seems reasonable and less noisy (random tabs/ws at end of line won't change layout) 16:18:26 RESOLVED: For white-space:pre-wrap tabs hang like spaces do 16:18:35 Topic: Limits on text-underline-offset to preserve semantic meaning 16:18:47 github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4059#issuecomment-510148922 16:19:01 astearns: Discussed this, what, last week? Been more discussion in GH. jensimmons gave 3 options 16:19:21 astearns: 1. Don't do any clamping. 2. Wide clamp 3. Narrow clamp 16:19:34 astearns: Any additional information to add? 16:20:31 astearns: From my pov we shouldn't have a clamp at all. Whatever clamp we choose might be difficult to come at an interop consensus as to what it should be. I am not concerned with semantic implications of moving an underline. 16:20:43 astearns: Agree we should have these offsets for strikethrough and overline as well 16:20:47 +1 to astearns 16:20:52 1 16:20:57 astearns: I think that's an arguement to add more offset properties and not clamping any 16:21:00 ??: I agree 16:21:01 +1, rather 16:21:26 s/??/bradk 16:21:34 I'm against the narrow clamping definition. 16:21:38 florian: One nuance. If there are impl difficulties having an allowance for clamping for the reason of not painint many pages away I would accept that. Not go any further then that. 16:22:09 smfr: If you don't clamp do you allow underline to be clipped out? So UA must paint howeevr far or is it okay to not paint if it's "too far away". If you don't clamp need to say if can do clipping 16:22:11 Ink overflow only. 16:22:24 florian: Do we expect impl to be more difficult to put underline 3000 px away? 16:22:30 smfr: More difficult for text decor 16:22:48 myles_: Performance hit where any part of page changes have to redraw entire paragragh 16:22:55 AmeliaBR: True for things like box shadows 16:22:59 myles_: Unfortunate there too 16:23:17 AmeliaBR: Shouldn't have special rules for this. SHould have general rule for at point you can reasonably clip 16:23:25 myles_: Have webcompat for others. THis is new so can change 16:23:59 jensimmons: Sounds to me this is an argument for a wide clamp. TO smfr point I meant any obstruction of author ability to put underline where they thought. A clip or a clamp is a level of sophestication we haven't reached. 16:24:12 florian: If you're going to limit it should be clamp rather then clipping. 16:24:20 florian: I would go for wide clamp or no clamp 16:24:43 Rossen_: Sounds like discussing merit of feature again. There was good consensus last time we wanted clamping 16:24:46 florian: no 16:24:54 I don't think there was emerging consensus 16:25:25 Rossen_: And also of the opinion that if we don't have clampping of offset then any other impl that do underline-offset will have fairly different semantic meanings as to where they'll draw underline or one that looks like a strikethrough. 16:25:35 Rossen_: For a new feature we have control over we have a chance to make it right. 16:26:24 Rossen_: If there are use cases to pay around with a background in the middle of the line box, use the striketrhough. If that's not good enough use a background. CHanging underline and allowing it to escape to be a strikethrough is bad from many PoV. Esp. for impl that don't have it. Having poor fallback is not a good idea 16:26:51 q+ 16:26:59 florian: I disagree it's poor. If you design an underline in such a way that it's thick and shifted up it's reasonable for the fallabck to be a normal underline. Argues for no local clamping. Wide is different. 16:27:31 Strike though cannot be a background because it is in front of the text 16:27:41 Why are *under*lines not drawn *under* the text (layerwise), so they can't actually strike-through? (they could strike-under?) 16:27:54 jensimmons: What I'm hearing Rossen_ is an argument for narrow clamp. I don't htink we've had consensus. After call esp hearing more and more no clamp. We can keep trying to articulate reasons, btu I haven't heard lack of consensus of the reasons for each. I've hear arguments as to why each is a good idea. I don't think there is consensus 16:27:55 tantek, they are drawn under the text 16:27:58 tantek: they are 16:27:59 tantek, and strike-throughs are drawn over 16:28:17 s/tantek:/tantek,/ 16:28:31 jensimmons: Personally I prefer no clamp. Okay with wide clamp if it's for performance. narrow is much harder and we don't have to prevent authors from doing dumb things. We should pick which of the 3 and discuss details 16:28:49 myles_: Maybe comprimise is wide clamp. b/c wide spec can just recommend a general idea of where to put it. 16:28:57 +1 for what Myels jsut said 16:29:06 *Myles just 16:29:06 s/Myels/Myles/ 16:29:23 astearns: Another way of casting narrow vs wide is narrow is for semantic argument to keep underline and underline and not mistaken for anything else. Wide is for perfromance reasons but not semantic. Is that correct? 16:29:25 fantasai: yes 16:29:29 florian: That's how I understan 16:29:56 thanks fantasai, then I'm not as worried about underline abuse, cosmetically, semantically or otherwise 16:29:59 is semantic. *-decoration is not 16:30:15 +1 to tantek and to bradk 16:30:16 Specific proposal for wide clamp: within the larger of 2 x max(line-box-height, font-height) 16:30:23 Rossen_: I think first is characterized well. Second is a little unfair. Impl will become more complex for unknown reasons. Performance will be potentially impacted. Having to go in and validate and keep validation out of current bounds for overflowing underlines is not great. I would say both impl and performance 16:30:51 astearns: To move discussion, can we resolve not to add a clamp to this property for mearly semantic reasons. Would anyone like to argue for narrow clamp to satisfy semantic concerns? 16:30:53 +1 to bradk 16:30:53 Implementations already need to keep track of underlines for overflow. 16:30:58 I wonder if there are some math related display hacks we could do with underlines far from their text 16:31:09 Rossen_: I would be willing to continue to argue this. I would want to hear from other groups on this issue, including a11y 16:31:40 astearns: I wonder if makes sens eto break issue into 2 concerns. There are separate arguments for each. 16:31:56 astearns: Is there anyone besides Rossen_ who is up to argue for semantic concerns? 16:32:01 this is still WD right? why not put the issue in the text as a question linking to the issue and leave the presence/absence of clamping open til we have more implementations? 16:32:22 tantek: we are getting a second implementation now, so we can't punt 16:32:28 tantek, we have implementations 16:32:45 myles_: Our original purpose was this. THere's a diff between existing prop and this new property. You could never draw a text shadow and not move it. But you can draw an underline and not move it. Semantic is a11y but also if you view new website in old browser it will look totally different. I don't think that's a concern for existing css properties 16:33:03 I feel like we can punt a bit longer until Chrome intents to implement, or have we seen that already? 16:33:07 fantasai: If you as an author want fallback for this underline to be no underline you can do that. If you want fallback to look regular you can do that. Both are possible 16:33:14 myles_: Authors have to think about that and add code 16:33:19 florian: To disappear yes 16:33:25 bradk: Have to think about that for any new 16:33:54 jensimmons: Fallback is natural and makes sense. If you're doing fancy in a new browser your fallback is a normal browser. I don't see it as complex, it seems natural from author PoV 16:34:12 +1 jensimmons 16:34:29 s/browser/underline/ ? 16:34:31 astearns: On wide clamp side I'm a bit concerns about doing it right for new prop means we have a set that behave one way and a set behaving a different way. 16:34:37 astearns: That's a difficult story to tell 16:34:51 astearns: As we introduce more properties you have to keep in mind which do you clip and which do not 16:35:49 florian: A valid use case was brought up for not wide clamp. Since they're animatibe you can shift overline from way for to right position with the offset. I would expect people to try and do that. Yes perf implications and complexity but if you go for it you go for it. There's no good taste design law that says we should ban this 16:36:36 myles_: Seen websites that do that effect. All those have underline in a reasonable position through any point in animation. I think all 3 options would work on those sites. Sites I've seen move underline rfom 5 px below natural position to its natural position 16:36:41 florian: Not from outside screen? 16:36:47 myles_: Never seen a website that did that 16:37:04 jensimmons: I agree with myles. Don't have to worry about underline flying in from off page. Small move from hover is use case 16:37:46 jensimmons: I wonder if one thing to agree one is question of if we were to have a clamp are there people that want to clip and have it disappear or can we agree with will never clip. We'll clamp and it won't move anymore. You hit a limit and it no longer moves 16:38:23 -1 to any clipping at all 16:38:27 AmeliaBR: I think it's important that if we allow clipping we have to be consistent where it happens so you don't have accidently disappearing. Clamping is easier to leave to UA discretion b/c will never have content disappear 16:38:36 myles_: Underline 700px away is effectively lost 16:38:37 I disagree with what AmeliaBR just said. But she also changed the subject 16:38:55 AmeliaBR: Are we clipping at 700px or at 2em. We've been throwing a lot of things around. 16:39:05 myles_: 700px is the no clamp situation 16:39:27 astearns: jensimmons question is if we do agree on a limit do we agree underline will be drawn at that limit if author spec something outside limit. 16:39:36 astearns: I'm for resolving on always drawing underline 16:39:38 myles_: fine with that 16:39:47 I think if we resolve on always drawing the underline, whatever clamping limit we choose should be relatively close to the line 16:39:59 florian: Along lines AmeliaBR said we can make argument it's less important with strong interop. But I think it's better to always draw 16:40:01 bradk: can all agree on that 16:40:04 +1 to always drawing 16:40:23 astearns: And fantasai point that if we do decide to always draw limit will need to be fairly close. If we say always draw helps to define limit 16:40:28 because if the limit is ~ 700px, then the author might want to draw the underline off-screen but it'll only be off-screen on some UAs/some screen sizs 16:40:30 astearns: Obj to always draw the underline? 16:40:46 RESOLVED: always draw the underline even if it's spec to be outside a limit we choose 16:41:07 astearns: Remaining issue is do we have a limit. If we do what is it 16:41:21 astearns: I heard from some people they wanted to talk to other groups like a11y 16:42:07 fantasai: If clamping and not clipping we need to clamp relatively close. WIthin a couple of lines. If we allow anywhere on screen and UA limit is 1000px author will try for 9000px and on some monitors it's visible which is not intended. 16:42:21 fantasai: If we're clamping rather then clipping underline needs to show up in most cases 16:42:34 florian: You're aruging no clamp or mid-range clamp but not wide 16:42:44 jensimmons: I think she's arguing narrow or wide but not no clamp 16:42:51 The problem fantasai just described already exists for authors. 16:42:55 fantasai: I'm against narrow; I agre with jensimmons and bradk arguments 16:43:12 Authors putting things off-screen, thinking they are gone, when in fact they are on-screen for some people 16:43:15 drousso has joined #css 16:43:18 bradk: If you're going to clamp position need to clamp thickness too. If top of underline is 3em away it can be 6em width 16:43:44 fantasai: It'll be visible enough for author to notice it's there. Interensting point if we want to allow underlines that are 500x width of line. 16:44:21 bradk: I'm for not restraining creative uses. It's a decoration. If there's a great reason to cover height of page, fine. If it's performance hit it's author's responsibility to deal 16:44:24 +1 bradk 16:44:39 agree with bradk 16:45:02 astearns: I'm not hearing consensus. Some people interested in a limit for semantic, some people want a limit for impl difficulty or perf, and others not up for a limit at all. 16:45:06 fantasai: Straw poll? 16:45:08 priorities: authoer > implementation > semantic purity 16:45:12 astearns: I suppose we can. 16:45:18 myles_: Fourth is allow impl to decide 16:45:29 so I think we should lean towards bradk & jensimmons opinions here 16:45:34 fantasai: I think we need some interop. If one does semantic and the other does none it'll be bad for everybody 16:46:12 Does it help to agree that it is an ink effect only, which doesn’t break to other pages and columns? 16:46:14 agreed with jen 16:46:16 jensimmons: If we land on narrow needs to be very specific. If we land on wide it can be more like the allowed zone needs to be something specific but beyond browsers can do what they want. Then you're out of author impact zone and into engineering impact zone. 16:46:23 bradk, we're already agreed on that, but good to remind 16:46:31 jensimmons: If it's about effecting authors need tight interop 16:47:00 Rossen_: Currently all browser clamp at semantic place. If you say differences are bad for everyone not having clamping close to semantic puts in that effect for everyone 16:47:05 AmeliaBR: Do we have more than one impl? 16:47:14 jensimmons: FF nightly and it has no clamp 16:47:27 Rossen_: All browsers that don't support offset draw underline at semantic height 16:47:35 astearns: Not relevent b/c discussing new property 16:47:48 Rossen_: Is based on amount of difference we impose on users without that property 16:47:51 straw poll?? 16:47:59 florian: THat's progress of enhancing. They do a sensible fallback 16:48:05 Rossen_: that's what I'm arguing about 16:48:11 s/progress of enhancing/called progressive enhancement/ 16:48:33 astearns: I agree with myles_ and jensimmons there is a 4th optino of we have a wide clamp and we spec you must allow this much and where you decide liit is impl dependent 16:48:58 **9:18 16:49:14 jensimmons: Can I suggest we don't do details in straw poll. It's no clamp, wide clamp, narrow clamp. We realize those might need to be refined and need allowance. THis is about what is important to people 16:49:27 A 16:49:30 astearns: IRC straw poll. a. No clamp. b. Narrow Clamp. c. Wide clamp 16:49:33 A 16:49:33 +1 to A, -1 to B, 0 to C 16:49:37 A or C — no clamp or wide clamp 16:49:40 astearns: Please put in IRC, can vote for >1 16:49:41 B, C 16:49:41 A 16:49:42 B C 16:49:42 C, A 16:49:47 B C 16:49:49 A 16:49:49 A or C 16:49:55 +1 to A, 0 to B, -1 to C 16:50:17 astearns: About half of people on call have voted 16:50:21 A 16:50:26 A 16:50:27 C would be OK if it is 1 meeeelion ems 16:50:33 A 16:50:37 A 16:50:40 florian: Surprised by nigel vote 16:50:56 B, C 16:51:02 present+ 16:51:25 nigel: It seem slike underline is the thing that belongs near text. having a wide clamp doesn't seem helpful. If you're saying it can be 5 lines away from text but not 6 it seems arbitrary. Either the underline is associated to text and we enforce or we don't clamp it. 16:51:43 B, C 16:51:48 florian: Narrow version of clamping tries to prevent overlapping underline with text so you can't mistake for a striketrhough 16:51:52 "Narrow clamp" forces the underline below the descenders and above the next line of text 16:51:55 nigel: May have misunderstood 16:52:03 "Wide clamp" has varying interpretations, but is not trying to make such a restriction. 16:52:03 florian: So you're for wide but not too wide? 16:52:22 nigel: Authors need to be able to overlapunderline with text. If it's a different color they can put text on top of it. 16:52:37 florian: So that means you disagree with what has been called narrow clamp. 16:52:47 nigel: Okay, I guess I should refine my vote. 16:53:06 Revised vote: +1 to A, -1 to B, 0 to C 16:53:14 astearns: Looks like no clamp wins the straw poll, but wouldn't resolve on 16:53:21 yes 16:53:23 can live with C 16:53:24 fantasai: Question for people that voted a. Can you live with c? 16:53:25 florian: can 16:53:32 bradk: Can if it's sufficiently far 16:53:43 AmeliaBR: For every css prop we allow impl to have reasonable limits 16:53:54 bradk: 1mil em away doesn't matter 16:53:59 yes the dr. evil option! 16:53:59 yes can live with C 16:54:16 Q - Limit is super-far, based on how big can you draw a box and things like that 16:54:19 fantasai: 3 ranges of clamping we could have. q: limit is super far based on how big can you draw a box. 16:54:42 R - Medium-range, like 6-10 lines - enough for author to notice that there's clamping, but not particularly restrictive 16:54:46 fantasai: r- medium range, like fixed to10 lines. lets author notice clampping, but not particularly restricted 16:54:54 Rossen_: Define in terms of line box? 16:55:00 Rossen_: I think that's more concrete 16:55:05 fantasai: That's what I'm talking about. 16:55:16 S - Short-range, 1-2 line boxes, tries to keep the line with the next, not overlapping the adjacent lines 16:55:17 fantasai: s- short range keeps line wiht text 16:55:25 Rossen_: q means no limits. 16:56:22 fantasai: I would equate q with basically no clampping. We've got medium and short range. Medium you can put it around but you can notice there's clamping. On screen most devices. Short is within range that gives author freedom within line box and slightly outside, but stay within range and avoid overlapping next text 16:56:32 fantasai: r and s are variations of [missed] clamp 16:56:46 fantasai: For people that voted a and can't live with r or s it means you can't live with c 16:56:57 jensimmons: Can you use medium and far words? 16:57:32 -1 to R, -10 to S 16:57:39 voted for A, can live with all versions of C (but prefer further) 16:57:44 fantasai: Far is basically same as no clamp b/c based on memory usage. Equate with a. Wide clamping there's 2 approaches. One is a lot of room but clamp it close enough you can see there's a clamp. Or we pull tighter and say our goal is within range of line box and not too far down 16:58:05 astearns: For people that voted b and c is there anyone that could not live with a? 16:58:21 myles_: Totally confused with all the letters 16:58:32 a. No clamp. b. Narrow Clamp. c. Wide clamp 16:58:58 AmeliaBR: Everyone that said narrow also said wide. Maybe enough consensus with wide and then we get to what is wide clamp really mean. 16:59:07 s/ AmeliaBR / jensimmons 16:59:10 A good compromise is when everyone is a little unhappy 17:00:03 jensimmons: I was thinking with a few line boxes away, I couldn't fine use cases to go any more then the line above it. I'm fine with it being +/- 1 line box. Doesn't get into not allowed above x height. It's much more forgiving, but it's like you don't want 2 line boxes away. 17:00:12 florian: I think bradk dislikes this. 17:00:31 astearns: I think it does improve discoverability of limit if we stop moving within a linebox of original position 17:00:52 myles_: Have we thought about moving other direction? We did clamp to not do striketrhough. Clamping moving toward text? 17:00:59 fantasai: This is all directions. This is in scope 17:00:59 I'd like to allow authors to animate text-decorations into view from outside the viewing area 17:01:04 florian: That's option b 17:01:08 that's my no-clamp use-case 17:01:11 astearns: We are at time. We'll come back to this again 17:01:38 topic: end 17:01:39 florian: I'd like to encourage anyone show cares to look at issue #3440. THat was next on agenda. Good to look. 17:01:46 astearns: Thanks everyone for calling in 17:02:09 s/show cares/show cares about how lines wrap/ 17:02:12 I wonder if we were almost at consensus on Jen's last proposal? 17:02:20 I think we were 17:02:44 It seems that bradk strongly dislikes it, but everyone else either likes it or can live with it 17:03:18 I'd rather allow authors the option 17:03:26 so I'd lean towards bradk's position 17:03:46 I'd rather allow the authors the option too, but I can live with that if that's the only place we can find consensus 17:03:56 Rossen_? 17:03:59 I'd rather ask if folks can live with A / no-clamp 17:04:01 I don't think limiting the underline to +/- one or two line boxes is a creative limit at all 17:04:24 also, we didn't get into whether we meant "must clamp there" or "may clamp, must not clamp closer than that" 17:04:25 do we limit text-shadow? 17:04:34 we don't 17:04:43 ok that seems obvious then. they' 17:04:50 I do think it helps discoverability of "WTF I moved the underline where?" and if browser engineers are saying they want to do this for performance sake, I'm like cool. It won't impact Authors. 17:04:50 they're both decorative 17:05:07 I think authors would be confused by why the change in value stopped having any effect on the line 17:05:10 principles of least surprise, don't limit text-decoration positioning if we don't limit text-shadow 17:05:19 Confounded even 17:05:26 I'm at the point where I strongly dislike ALL the options because we've been debating too long. But I'd be happier with one of the other extremes: either no clamp & leave it up to authors, or clamp to a semantically meaningful definition of "underline" (e.g., midline in between x-height and 1em below the baseline). I don't like arbitrary restrictions. 17:05:45 I think strawpoll demonstrated far more A than other options 17:05:52 And the line thickness would still cause the same performance issues 17:06:06 so I'd really like us to find a way to get consensus on A, rather than begrudgingly picking a far less preferred option 17:06:44 If text shadow doesn’t have a limit, then neither should underline 17:06:50 boom 17:06:59 that's what authors are going to think 17:07:18 limitless text-shadow is already out of the box (so to speak) 17:07:27 myles said he considered the lack of limit on text shadow to be a historical mistake that we cannot fix there for compat reasons, but can fix here because it's new. I disagree, but that was the claim. 17:07:53 limitless text-shadow is excellent for retro 1980s style effects 17:08:51 Exactly. A cool creative effect that wasn’t necessarily anticipated by spec authors 17:09:06 yes 17:10:41 I also have used box shadow with giant spread values for backdrops for dialogs 17:10:45 I think it'd go with: "UAs may limit how far the underline may be placed. If they do so, the limit must be enforced by clamping the numerical value of the offset, not by visual clipping. The limit must not be less than ...." and we pick the largest ... that gets no objection. 17:11:16 that way, UAs that want to allow authors creativity can do so, and those who want to enforce a limit are at least forced to keep the underline visible 17:11:40 That gets into the interop problem again 17:11:41 😏👈 one meeelion ems 17:11:44 Someone tries to put an underline off-screen 17:11:50 it works in one browser 17:11:54 2vmax 17:11:56 it ends up on-screen in another browser 17:12:02 true 17:12:23 but you can do that with shadows, outlines, etc. 17:12:37 they clip, they don't clamp 17:13:25 bradk, I don't think implementations want to use viewport units in their clamping limits 17:13:34 they require recalculation every time the window size changes 17:13:36 sure, but if you have your shadow offset by 500px, it will be off screen on my phone, and on screen on my desktop. no need to invoke clamping for that problem to occur 17:14:07 So I don't get why this is a problem now and not before. 17:14:07 That's fine because you designed for desktop, and some things you have to scroll to on a phone, it's OK 17:14:15 the problem is you *try* to put something off-scren 17:14:21 and then it's visible on someone else's computer 17:14:24 maybe you designed for phone, and it bugs out on desktop 17:14:55 really? 17:15:10 If you could have viewport units, it would solve that part though 17:15:11 I put my shadow 500px away to make it off screen, so that I can animate it into view when $foo happens, but I failed and it shows on big phones and desktop. 17:15:20 same problem with the underline 17:15:34 Sort of 17:15:36 but while I agree it's a problem in theory, I don't recall ever running into that 17:16:11 If the limit is going to be as far away as 2vmax or thereabouts, then I'd like to reresolve on clipping 17:16:37 "may clamp, but not closer than X" has the same problem, which I think is theoretical, not real life 17:16:58 which is why I am disagreeing with it 17:17:17 good. At least we know what we disagree about :) 17:17:31 If we're going with "no clamping, effectively, because the limit is huge" then we should have "and you clip if it's too far" 17:17:46 fantasai: Why clip? 17:17:47 If we're going with "clamping within reasonably visible range" then "clamp, don't clip" 17:18:44 bradk, results are less arbitrary, and if it's a UA-defined limit, you don't get an underline overlapping some random other content on the page in one browser but not on another 17:18:50 Offset 1vh, thickness 1vh 17:19:02 draw a box, not an underline 17:19:36 Sorry I keep thinking we are offsetting the center of the line 17:19:44 or maybe we leave the clip vs clamp question open in the "may clamp, but no closer than X" version, and browsers who limit to nearby clamp, and those who limit to 65536px clip 17:19:56 https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4059#issuecomment-512421819 17:20:03 I drew a drawing. 17:20:42 Offset -1vh, thickness 1vh 17:21:06 Jen, do you mean "must clamp there" or "may clamp, but no closer than there". 17:21:30 Florian, our job is to create inteorp. 17:22:14 I take that as a vote for "must clamp there" :) 17:22:49 Thanks jensimmons :) 17:25:42 topic: end 17:25:46 :) 17:25:49 trackbot, end meeting 17:25:49 Zakim, list attendees 17:25:49 As of this point the attendees have been smfr, Rossen_, astearns, dael, plinss, gregwhitworth, jensimmons, rachelandrew, fantasai, AmeliaBR, cbiesinger, melanierichards, antonp, 17:25:52 ... bradk, dbaron, drousso, emilio, Nigel, tantek 17:25:57 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 17:25:57 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/07/17-css-minutes.html trackbot