16:55:55 RRSAgent has joined #css 16:55:55 logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/12/16-css-irc 16:55:57 RRSAgent, make logs Public 16:55:58 Meeting: Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Working Group Teleconference 16:56:49 Rossen_ has changed the topic to: Agenda for Dec 16 meeting: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2020Dec/0022.html 16:56:54 present+ 16:57:02 dael has joined #css 16:58:45 present+ 16:58:53 dauwhe has joined #css 16:59:27 becky has joined #css 16:59:43 present+ 16:59:47 ScribeNick: dael 17:00:16 present_ 17:00:18 present+ 17:00:23 Rossen: Hello everyone! We'll get going in a couple minutes 17:00:27 present+ 17:00:35 fremy has joined #css 17:00:43 alisonmaher has joined #css 17:00:48 present+ 17:00:59 dlibby has joined #css 17:01:16 Rossen: For those that just joined we're waiting for a few more people 17:01:25 present+ 17:01:40 present+ 17:01:48 CSSWG_LogBot has joined #css 17:01:48 present+ 17:02:24 jfkthame has joined #css 17:02:27 Rossen: I think we have a quorum and a full agenda 17:02:31 present+ 17:02:33 present+ 17:02:36 present+ 17:02:45 present+ 17:02:46 Rossen: Before we get going wanted to hear if there are any extra items 17:02:59 present+ 17:03:02 florian: No changes, but a bunch of things within the EOY publications that were requested late 17:03:12 present+ 17:03:12 Rossen: Yes, I intentionally didn't list b/c I know it would be incomplete 17:03:33 Rossen: Any other things? 17:03:40 Topic: EOY Publications 17:03:48 present+ 17:03:52 Rossen: I think fantasai had a bunch. Let's start with the one that are ready 17:04:14 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2020OctDec/0099.html 17:04:21 fantasai: First is CSS Text 3 17:04:30 chris has joined #css 17:04:35 Rossen: Woohoo! 17:04:37 present+ 17:04:46 drousso has joined #css 17:04:46 present+ 17:04:47 fantasai: At 0 issues for first time in 18 years 17:04:49 present+ 17:05:10 Rossen: If anyone has an objection to this one...^-^ 17:05:19 present+ 17:05:31 Rossen: Let's followthe order. Objection sot publish css text 3 as CR 17:05:42 RESOLVED: publish css text 3 as CR 17:05:44 ＼(^o^)／ 17:05:46 oriol has joined #css 17:05:52 present+ 17:06:08 q+ 17:06:08 present+ 17:06:09 fantasai: WE sent 2/3 to CR already. writing modes and text decor require this. This is the last piece 17:06:26 chris: DoC, up to date changes, usual questions 17:06:30 fantasai: All in the email 17:06:31 q? 17:06:36 ack chris 17:06:38 florian: In terms of tests we're beyond what we need 17:06:47 fantasai: Should have been CR a long time ago, never got it together 17:06:54 chris: Who is going to raise the issue? 17:07:01 fantasai: I can file the transition request 17:07:10 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2020OctDec/0103.html 17:07:17 fantasai: Next is css images L3 17:07:22 fantasai: Minor update 17:07:27 Rossen_: That's a WD? 17:07:29 fantasai: CR 17:07:41 Rossen_: What's the update? 17:08:14 fantasai: Several, 4, substantive changes and one editorial change. Have to publish this so all other specs can crosslink the rename 17:08:16 florian: CRD? 17:08:21 fantasai: Yes, CRD for this. 17:08:32 Rossen_: CRD or CR? 17:08:36 fantasai: CRD is easier so that 17:08:43 Rossen_: Objections to new CRD for images 3? 17:08:49 RESOLVED: new CRD for images 3 17:08:54 fantasai: CSS grid 1 and grid 2 17:09:01 fantasai: Handful of mainly editorial fixes 17:09:16 Rossen_: Have 1 issue on grid for today. Any implications if we resolve? 17:09:16 present+ 17:09:30 fantasai: I believe there are a few minor editorial tweaks for that but they're included 17:09:34 argyle has joined #css 17:09:38 Rossen_: Okay, so can proceed without 17:09:46 Rossen_: New CRD to Grid L1 17:09:48 Rossen_: Obk? 17:09:58 RESOLVED: New CRD for Grid L1 17:10:02 fantasai: And grid 2 17:10:19 Rossen_: Grid 2. Objections to republish a new CRD for Grid 2? 17:10:26 RESOLVED: republish a new CRD for Grid 2 17:10:37 fantasai: florian contain? 17:10:40 smfr has joined #css 17:10:46 florian: Would like contain1 and contain 2. Start with 1 17:10:48 present+ 17:10:57 florian: contain 1 is rec, made a few editorial and 2 substantive 17:11:02 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2020OctDec/0104.html 17:11:18 florian: One is how we deal with computed values and the other is re-write of contain sizing. Didn't change behavior but old text was vague and short 17:11:54 florian: Resolved to do this, under p2020 we can make a new publication w/o requesting approval but by making annotations in spec we attend to do this. Done that editorially and can push with approval 17:12:05 florian: This would be the first use of this process and plh waiting on us to try 17:12:07 q? 17:12:17 chris: This is the we can update the rec with new features or is this something else? 17:12:23 florian: Not new feature, just a correction 17:12:28 Rossen_: We just need a resolution? 17:12:42 florian: Yes. I think for mechanics a team member needs to do it, but we need resolution 17:12:50 Rossen_: Obj to update Containment 1 REC? 17:12:58 RESOLVED: update Containment 1 REC 17:13:12 Okay, if that is ready I can prep it for publication on Tuesday 17:13:21 florian: Just a REC. As before can do editorial. Substantive things are not done but are notes we want to so it's just a rec 17:13:38 florian: Containment 2. mostly resolved or editorial. I could almost repub but there's 1 item 17:13:40 https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Fcss-contain-2%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fdrafts.csswg.org%2Fcss-contain-2%2F#cv-notes 17:13:42 florian: This diff ^ 17:13:52 present+ 17:14:08 florian: Discussed in a PR with several people but merged w/o resolution. Seems innocuous, but if anyone wants to not publish now is the time to say so 17:14:36 Rossen_: Besides the note the addition is the new restriction for visibility [reads] 17:14:41 Rossen_: That's the essense of it? 17:14:48 florian: Yes, everything else is resolved or editorial 17:15:07 q? 17:15:31 Rossen_: Any objections to accepting the PR and republishing WD of containment 2? 17:15:44 chrishtr: Can you repeat the change? 17:15:59 florian: You approved it, you merged the PR where it was approved. There's a link to the diff in IRC 17:16:11 chrishtr: I approve that ^-^ 17:16:33 RESOLVED: Accept the PR ( https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Fcss-contain-2%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fdrafts.csswg.org%2Fcss-contain-2%2F#cv-notes ) and republishing WD of containment 2 17:16:41 Rossen_: Other requests? 17:16:42 fantasai: Yes 17:16:43 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2020OctDec/0106.html 17:16:46 fantasai: CSS box model L3 17:17:10 fantasai: Requesting CR transition. no new features from css 2. Redefines padding and margin. Created so we had something to refer to and add terms. 17:17:35 fantasai: Couple issues asking for more terms but I think can do in CR. i18n completed review. I can't think reason why anyone else would care about a module with nothing new in it. 17:17:47 fantasai: I suggest we transition to CR so we have stable reference 17:18:00 Rossen_: I don't have issue with that. Question, what is benefit of advancing this to CR? 17:18:05 fantasai: So we can get to REC 17:18:10 Rossen_: If it doesn't add anything 17:18:17 florian: Adds terminology 17:18:19 Rossen_: Okay 17:18:27 chris: So that means it passes all tests in css 2? 17:18:28 fantasai: Yes 17:18:36 Rossen_: Can we go directly to rec :) 17:18:39 bradk has joined #css 17:18:39 fantasai: I don't htink so 17:18:51 Rossen_: Obj to moving css box model 3 to CR? 17:18:56 lol 17:19:02 RESOLVED: Move css box model 3 to CR 17:19:05 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2020OctDec/0107.html 17:19:05 present+ 17:19:12 fantasai: backgrounds and borders L3 17:19:20 fantasai: Very stable, few changes. But should be republished 17:19:27 fantasai: Summary of tests ^ 17:19:41 Rossen_: You said only editorial? 17:20:07 fantasai: 3 normative. First 2 have tests in wpt. 3rd is practically unobservable. I'm sure someone can write a test but I don't think will make a difference 17:20:20 Rossen_: Objections to new CR for Backgrounds and Borders 3? 17:20:26 Rossen_: And next time we can do CRD for it 17:20:39 RESOLVED: publish a new CR for Backgrounds and Borders 3 17:20:49 Topic: 2020 Snapshot 17:20:50 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2020OctDec/0105.html 17:21:14 fantasai: Last publication issue. florian and I reviewed 2020 snapshot. It is ready based on earlier discussion. We think a few specs should be added/shifted though 17:21:14 https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4715#issuecomment-745856263 17:21:25 fantasai: If it's okay I'd like to ask WG about possible changes. 17:21:47 github: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149772 17:21:50 oops 17:21:54 fantasai: First is add css box module L3 to top tier since it has no new functionality. Pretty stable 17:21:58 github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4715#issuecomment-745856263 17:22:00 hober has joined #css 17:22:07 fantasai: Let's go one by one 17:22:15 Rossen_: Objections to moving box to the top? 17:22:24 Resolved: move box to the top 17:22:33 fantasai: Next [missed] 17:22:40 fantasai: ditto for images L3 since we cleaned that up 17:22:50 fantasai: It is now in sync with all the changes and pretty stable 17:23:00 fantasai: Not top level as top, but stable spec with limited testing 17:23:10 https://drafts.csswg.org/css-2020/ 17:23:20 Rossen_: Objections to moving images 3 to stable bucket? 17:23:27 RESOLVED: Move images 3 to stable bucket 17:23:39 Rossen_: Moving css ui 5 to stable limited test 17:23:44 RESOLVED: Moving css ui 5 to stable limited test 17:23:48 fantasai: Next few less sure 17:23:59 s/ui 5/sizing 3/ 17:24:00 s/ui 5/sizing 3/ 17:24:19 present+ 17:24:30 fantasai: There was an issue against snapshot about transforms l2 to rough interop bucket 17:24:34 chris: It has one impl 17:24:39 chris: Chrome has a bug on it 17:24:49 fantasai: transforms 2 I thought multi impl of 3d transforms 17:24:57 chris: Yes, but single transform is only one impl 17:25:05 florian: Seems short for rough interop 17:25:15 fantasai: Could add and exclude those bits or save for next year 17:25:17 florian: Save it 17:25:25 fantasai: Other was color adjust 1. Maybe save for next year as well 17:25:42 hmm, Gecko ships individual transform properties iirc 17:25:45 chris: Doesn't have any tests so claim of interop is hard to substantiate. Is it only human testable? 17:25:54 fantasai: SHouldn't require human interaction to work. We can do it next year 17:26:00 fantasai: I asked about color and font 4 17:26:05 chris: I responded. 17:26:06 Rossen_: 2021 17:26:08 WebKit has an impl, but not shipped in Safari 17:26:29 chris: Color 4 is stable. A few bits are not. Closed enough that I expect cr in jan or feb. stable and getting impl 17:26:35 s/an impl/an impl of individual transform properties/ 17:26:37 fantasai: color 4 in stable needs testing or save for 2021 17:26:44 chris: let's say stable and needs testing. 17:26:48 chris: Same with fonts 4 17:27:00 Rossen_: color l4 move to sable needs testing 17:27:07 RESOLVED: color l4 move to stable needs testing 17:27:24 fantasai: fonts 4 a lot of open issues. Lot of impl happeneing but spec text mayne not stable 17:27:37 do we not have tests for most of color l4 in WPT from when impls implemented it? 17:27:48 chris: It is. I disagree on issue. 2 groups of long running issues. generic font families and privacy issues. It's stable apart from those bits. 17:28:00 florian: There are 76 open issues. Are they all what you said? 17:28:08 chris: At least 3/4 of them 17:28:16 Rossen_: Seems a little early with number of issues 17:28:28 chris: I'll push a little but I'll fallback with graceful degredation 17:28:34 fantasai: I think we want to save that for next year 17:28:36 chris: Fine 17:28:49 fantasai: Prop publishing the snapshot 2020 as a note 17:28:52 chris: Grid 2 17:29:13 fantasai: Oh, yes. Grid 1 is rough interop but needs more testing. Grid 2 is a superset of 1. 17:29:22 fantasai: Part that's different in L2 has had no issues 17:29:32 fantasai: Might make sense to put them in the same bucket 17:29:36 chris: Makes sense to me 17:29:48 s/same bucket/same bucket, since what's holding 2 back is the shared part/ 17:29:55 Rossen_: Publishing snapshot as a note. Objections? 17:29:58 s/bucket/bucket as 1/ 17:30:03 fantasai: Didn't resolve on grid 2. 17:30:09 Rossen_: I thought we were not going to move 17:30:17 fantasai: Add to snapshot in same place as grid 1 17:30:22 Rossen_: Objections? 17:30:30 RESOLVED: Add grid 2 to snapshot in same place as grid 1 17:30:49 Rossen_: And now, are we ready to push snapshot 2020 as a note? 17:30:56 RESOLVED: Publish snapshot 2020 as a note 17:31:05 chris: What state is it in and when to prepare for publication? 17:31:15 fantasai: Need to make resolution edits. Tomorrow, I'm guessing 17:31:27 Rossen_: Anything else for publication? 17:31:30 fantasai: That's all I got 17:31:33 florian: I'm done 17:31:42 Topic: [css-variables?] Higher level custom properties that control multiple declarations 17:31:44 Does that mean we get a CSS 2020 in 2020?? 17:31:53 just barely 17:31:59 github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5624 17:32:27 leaverou: I didn't explicitly add this. WE discussed last time and didn't get resolution. Interesting discussion in issue and off GH 17:32:32 https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5624#issuecomment-746339609 17:32:34 leaverou: I summerized current state in ^ comment 17:33:10 leaverou: Summary: It looks like best course of action for block conditionals. Can't use pseudo class, casuse issues. If if() cascades have to carry extra context and increases too much complexity 17:33:30 leaverou: Best is impl if based on idea of desugering to inline if calls and take into account properties in same rule. example in comment 17:33:53 leaverou: Rasises some issues b/c certain values eval differently depending on prop. Hasn't come up that much. Length in some MQs 17:34:13 leaverou: For example, ones we could come up with TabAtkins is %, em values, rem, lh, rlh, currentColor. 17:34:13 rrsagent, here 17:34:13 See https://www.w3.org/2020/12/16-css-irc#T17-34-13-1 17:34:51 leaverou: Problem. If it desugars to inline if calls nad conditional has relative values you may have cases where part of rule eval to true and a part of false. Example in comment. 17:35:00 leaverou: Agreed don't want partial applicaitons. How to solve? 17:35:32 leaverou: Came up with defining how these relative values would be evaluated. cureentColor is as if in color and so on. New inline conditional function to desugar iff 17:35:39 leaverou: Doesn't sound good, but couldn't come with better 17:36:00 bradk has joined #css 17:36:01 leaverou: Addresses single conditional. Css nesting has same partial applicaiton problme. May have condition true for a rule but not decendnents. 17:36:10 q? 17:36:21 leaverou: Might have var warning = on and a value for --warning on parent and different value on the child 17:36:31 leaverou: You again have @if block applied paritially 17:36:49 leaverou: Not sure if there's a way to address this. Couldn't come up with anything but just discussed yesterday. Don't know if there are ideas 17:37:13 fantasai: What do you do if content has if clause with a property that effect evaluation. if on a em and evaluate em against font size 17:37:18 leaverou: Can you put example in IRC? 17:37:36 @if (var(...) > 1em) { font-size: 35pt; } 17:37:44 leaverou: I see 17:37:47 leaverou: I'm not sure 17:37:55 leaverou: What would you suggest should happen? 17:38:06 leaverou: It's basically same as if you have inline if 17:38:20 Rossen_: In interest of time, are we ready to resolve or should we take it back to GH and continue there? 17:38:48 leaverou: I suppose we could go back to issue 17:39:08 Rossen_: Let's do that. Let's continue discussing there. I was hoping we were closer to resolution then we are. We'll come back 17:39:16 Topic: [css-font-loading] Browsers disagree on what it means for a FontFace object to be "CSS-connected", and what effect does it have. 17:39:24 github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5707 17:40:39 emilio: Browser behave really oddly. Spec-wise spec says FontFace object once the rule is removed you should be able to use like it's not css-connected. A bit messy, browsers don't impl to the letter. Simplier would be if fontface created for a css rule it is concidered css-created. Then impl and spec are simplier 17:40:52 emilio: Given behavior is all over the place and it's an edge case it would be nice to simplify 17:41:03 fantasai: 1em evaluated against font-size refers to the *parent* font-size, so there's no conflict there. That's *why* we'd evaluate ems against font-size, to avoid that sort of thing 17:41:08 TabAtkins: What imacts does ti have on the connection between properties if we just make a flag for css-created 17:41:42 emilio: afaict is chrome and ff don't allow change of descriptor of fontface object. Per spec it's 2-way mapping. I think FF and Chrome don't impl. I don't see an issue with 2-way mapping as is. 17:41:55 TabAtkins: If keeping the connection I'm unclear what the change is 17:42:17 leaverou, I think it would be super unexpected if you evaluated em against font-size, unless all of the if clause lengths evaluate against the parent or something 17:42:29 s/font-size/parent font-size/ 17:42:38 emilio: Per spec once you removet he rule from the style sheet, even though om wrapper for rule exists, the fontface object is diconnected from it. Means a lot of functions that need to check for css connection need to also update stylesheets and other expensive stuff 17:42:51 leaverou, and in that case, seems a lot less useful? 17:43:10 TabAtkins: So if you move a cssom fontface object into another stylesheet in another document so it shows in a different fontface set would that make 1 more object 17:43:24 emilio: afaict you can't do that. cssom method is strings so you need to stringify 17:43:35 fantasai: then the other options are: a) it evaluates differently per property, so you have partial application b) it evaluates against another property, e.g. width, so you have a cycle in font-size. 17:44:00 TabAtkins: Okay. If purely when an om rule is created it gets a corresponding object and that's a permanent connection I'm okay with that. Simplication. Fine with me 17:44:04 q? 17:44:04 emilio: I think so too 17:44:08 Rossen_: Other opinions? 17:44:22 Rossen_: Summary? 17:44:52 emilio: Proposed: Change css-connected by css created bool where it cannot be unset until removed frmo a document 17:44:57 leaverou, sure I recognize those are bad... but also, it seems to me that the use cases would want to evaluate against the element itself 17:45:04 Rossen_: Objecitons? 17:45:17 RESOLVED: Change css-connected by css created bool where it cannot be unset until removed from a document 17:45:42 emilio: Another issue in this. That was changing definition. Now what happens to document.fonts.add with that object 17:45:45 leaverou, if that's not the case and evaluating the parent font size is useful and expected, great, but if not, then making it implementable isn't actually solving the problem 17:45:49 emilio: It's in the same issue, but needs different resolution 17:46:33 emilio: it's when it's from a rule created in another document. I think blink does nothing. Spec says throw which is what gecko does. Doesn't match WK or blink. Happy to use either, both are reasonable. 17:46:36 dholbert has joined #css 17:46:52 emilio: It does nothing if called on same document which is odd. I think easiest is follow blink 17:46:57 TabAtkins: Meaning it doesn't get added to set? 17:46:58 emilio: Right 17:47:06 TabAtkins: No opinion on throw or ignore. Whichever 17:47:32 emilio: I don't care either. Throw to do nothing is a bit easier for use. Doing nothing to throwing may break. No strong opinion. Whatever gets faster interop 17:47:57 TabAtkins: Seems rare to do this. I suspect we could move to throw and I would prefer because it's an error. Do we have an issue to fix in chrome? 17:48:04 emilio: I'm okay change to throw 17:48:13 TabAtkins: I'll try that and talk to Rune. If not we'll come back 17:48:47 Rossen_: With my TAG hat I'd argue strongly for throwing. There's a pretty clear guidance on this pattern. Should do most observable. Let's not have silent error. I agree with prop 17:48:50 Rossen_: Objections? 17:49:03 RESOLVED: Have it throw an error 17:49:36 RESOLVED: have document.fonts.add when called with css create fontface object throw an error 17:49:36 fantasai: If you look at the use cases wrt WC, none of them really seems to need ems. We just need to define what happens when someone uses it that way. I agree that parent is not that useful, but not sure the alternatives are better. I'm hoping there might be a 4th alternative we haven't considered, but I think the top priority would be to make sure that either the entire @if is applied or none of it, even if some values become less useful in 17:49:37 conditions. 17:49:53 Topic: [css-color-adjust] It's a bit unfortunate that user stylesheets can't specify arbitrary colors. 17:50:00 github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5779 17:50:30 emilio: I don't htink it's huge. Came up when reviewing changes to forced colors. It's a bit unfortunate user colors stop working 17:51:03 emilio: I don't have a super great use case for user stylesheets spec arbitrary colors. I don't think it's huge but wanted to raise b/c it's weird. 17:51:13 q? 17:51:24 fremy: I think we did consider it. You can spec any color and say forced color adjust none 17:51:27 emilio: Yeah 17:51:41 fremy: You want to do it anyway to disable backplate. You can say antying in stylesheet. 17:51:48 or stick to the forced colors palette 17:52:06 emilio: Would need to disable for everything but yeah. It's a different behavior. not a huge issue. Can disable forced-colors all together or change system colors to match what you want 17:52:15 Rossen_: Doesn't sound like there's anything ot resolve 17:52:19 emilio: Resolve no change 17:52:22 Rossen_: Objections: 17:52:26 RESOLVED: Close no change 17:52:34 Topic: css-color-adjust] [css-scrollbars] scrollbar-color should probably compute to auto in forced-colors mode. 17:52:42 github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5778 17:53:08 emilio: This was the case I could think of b/c we don't have system color for scrollbars. Probably should force to auto and have system scrollbar colors to show 17:53:12 sounds reasonable to me 17:53:16 Rossen_: Sounds sensible. Other opinions? 17:53:46 Rossen_: Prop: Scrollbar colors should compute to auto in forced-colors mode 17:53:51 RESOLVED: Scrollbar colors should compute to auto in forced-colors mode 17:54:07 Topic: [css-scroll-snap-1] Snap area trapping behavior of non scrollable elements 17:54:28 github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4496 17:55:24 fantasai: Added b/c we had original set up scroll-snap-type where if it's non-inital it traps snaps. If elements inside asking for snap position we ignore. scroll cotnainers have to trap. Added additional behavior for scroll-snap-type so if someone wants to say in this area ignore a snap position they could do so 17:55:54 fantasai: Seems this is difficult to impl for Blink. Do we want to not have the behavior? Would mean only way to prevent contents from having snap behavior is put in a scroll container 17:56:21 Rossen_: It's a hack. The hack will work. People will hate the hack. It'll probably end up in css hacks books. 17:56:30 https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4496#issuecomment-706333521 17:56:33 Rossen_: Is it really that difficult that we should go to that extent. 17:56:39 fantasai: Here's comment from impl ^ 17:56:48 fantasai: I'm not aware of any requests for the behavior 17:57:02 Rossen_: non-Blink impl with opinion? 17:57:15 smfr: My hunch is it doesn't make sense for non-scrollable things to trap snapping 17:57:23 fantasai: Within that element we don't track snap position 17:57:33 Rossen_: Image in a carosel scenario? 17:58:16 fantasai: No. a section and in that section there's properties setting snap points, you can turn that off. You can say this element ignore the snap positions. We can just not have that behavior and see if someone complaints 17:58:31 s/positions/positions inside/ 17:58:37 Rossen_: In interest of time we can resolve here. If there are no strong arguments for keeping it I'm fine with that 17:58:48 smfr: Looked at WK and would be easy to impl 17:59:00 Rossen_: Argument for reverting doesn't seem to be a problem for WK 17:59:19 Rossen_: What if we keep issue open and when we get to actual impl and get experience I think that's when we come back and decide 17:59:22 fantasai: Mark at-risk? 17:59:24 Rossen_: Sensible 17:59:27 Rossen_: Objections? 17:59:35 RESOLVED: Mark this property at-risk 17:59:47 Topic: end 17:59:55 Rossen_: We're at the end of the call. 18:00:05 Rossen_: I'd like to use the last few seconds for the yearly summary 18:00:26 Rossen_: Have resolved and made 52 publishings. 4 notes, 31 wd, 16 cr and 1 REC 18:00:32 Rossen_: Over 192 resolutions 18:00:56 dael+++++++++ 18:01:28 Rossen_: Crazy year, very busy. I want to thank all the members for participating, editors for working, staff for helping us, dael for scribing, and everyone for putting up with what 2020 brought us. WG showed up strong. 18:01:41 Rossen_: Thank you everyone for going through this together and let's hope for a better 2021 18:01:48 [lots of cheering] 18:07:19 antonp has joined #css 18:30:27 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/12/16-css-minutes.html fantasai 18:30:44 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/12/16-css-minutes.html fantasai 18:31:25 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/12/16-css-minutes.html fantasai 19:03:32 bradk has joined #css 19:43:37 dauwhe has joined #css 20:00:33 zhengxu has joined #css 20:14:13 Zakim has left #css 20:25:01 dauwhe has joined #css 20:30:28 dauwhe has joined #css 20:46:46 jensimmons has joined #css 20:59:06 TabAtkins: Yo, need you to merge https://github.com/tabatkins/bikeshed/pull/1834 so we can publish 20:59:46 Been busy this morning, will get to in a bit. 21:28:27 zhengxu has joined #css 21:40:03 jensimmons has joined #css 21:40:37 gonggong has joined #css 21:42:37 gonggong has left #css 22:57:37 zhengxu has joined #css