Meeting minutes
<cbiesinger> present_
Rossen: Hello everyone! We'll get going in a couple minutes
Rossen: For those that just joined we're waiting for a few more people
Rossen: I think we have a quorum and a full agenda
Rossen: Before we get going wanted to hear if there are any extra items
florian: No changes, but a bunch of things within the EOY publications that were requested late
Rossen: Yes, I intentionally didn't list b/c I know it would be incomplete
Rossen: Any other things?
EOY Publications
Rossen: I think fantasai had a bunch. Let's start with the one that are ready
<fantasai> https://
fantasai: First is CSS Text 3
Rossen: Woohoo!
fantasai: At 0 issues for first time in 18 years
Rossen: If anyone has an objection to this one...^-^
Rossen: Let's followthe order. Objection sot publish css text 3 as CR
Resolution: publish css text 3 as CR
<florian> ＼(^o^)／
fantasai: WE sent 2/3 to CR already. writing modes and text decor require this. This is the last piece
chris: DoC, up to date changes, usual questions
fantasai: All in the email
florian: In terms of tests we're beyond what we need
fantasai: Should have been CR a long time ago, never got it together
chris: Who is going to raise the issue?
fantasai: I can file the transition request
<fantasai> https://
fantasai: Next is css images L3
fantasai: Minor update
Rossen_: That's a WD?
fantasai: CR
Rossen_: What's the update?
fantasai: Several, 4, substantive changes and one editorial change. Have to publish this so all other specs can crosslink the rename
florian: CRD?
fantasai: Yes, CRD for this.
Rossen_: CRD or CR?
fantasai: CRD is easier so that
Rossen_: Objections to new CRD for images 3?
Resolution: new CRD for images 3
fantasai: CSS grid 1 and grid 2
fantasai: Handful of mainly editorial fixes
Rossen_: Have 1 issue on grid for today. Any implications if we resolve?
fantasai: I believe there are a few minor editorial tweaks for that but they're included
Rossen_: Okay, so can proceed without
Rossen_: New CRD to Grid L1
Rossen_: Obk?
Resolution: New CRD for Grid L1
fantasai: And grid 2
Rossen_: Grid 2. Objections to republish a new CRD for Grid 2?
Resolution: republish a new CRD for Grid 2
fantasai: florian contain?
florian: Would like contain1 and contain 2. Start with 1
florian: contain 1 is rec, made a few editorial and 2 substantive
<fantasai> https://
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
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
florian: This would be the first use of this process and plh waiting on us to try
chris: This is the we can update the rec with new features or is this something else?
florian: Not new feature, just a correction
Rossen_: We just need a resolution?
florian: Yes. I think for mechanics a team member needs to do it, but we need resolution
Rossen_: Obj to update Containment 1 REC?
Resolution: update Containment 1 REC
<chris> Okay, if that is ready I can prep it for publication on Tuesday
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
florian: Containment 2. mostly resolved or editorial. I could almost repub but there's 1 item
florian: This diff ^
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
Rossen_: Besides the note the addition is the new restriction for visibility [reads]
Rossen_: That's the essense of it?
florian: Yes, everything else is resolved or editorial
Rossen_: Any objections to accepting the PR and republishing WD of containment 2?
chrishtr: Can you repeat the change?
florian: You approved it, you merged the PR where it was approved. There's a link to the diff in IRC
chrishtr: I approve that ^-^
Resolution: Accept the PR ( https://
Rossen_: Other requests?
fantasai: Yes
<fantasai> https://
fantasai: CSS box model L3
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.
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.
fantasai: I suggest we transition to CR so we have stable reference
Rossen_: I don't have issue with that. Question, what is benefit of advancing this to CR?
fantasai: So we can get to REC
Rossen_: If it doesn't add anything
florian: Adds terminology
Rossen_: Okay
chris: So that means it passes all tests in css 2?
fantasai: Yes
Rossen_: Can we go directly to rec :)
fantasai: I don't htink so
Rossen_: Obj to moving css box model 3 to CR?
<chris> lol
Resolution: Move css box model 3 to CR
<fantasai> https://
fantasai: backgrounds and borders L3
fantasai: Very stable, few changes. But should be republished
fantasai: Summary of tests ^
Rossen_: You said only editorial?
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
Rossen_: Objections to new CR for Backgrounds and Borders 3?
Rossen_: And next time we can do CRD for it
Resolution: publish a new CR for Backgrounds and Borders 3
2020 Snapshot
<fantasai> https://
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
<fantasai> https://
fantasai: If it's okay I'd like to ask WG about possible changes.
<chris> github: https://
<chris> oops
fantasai: First is add css box module L3 to top tier since it has no new functionality. Pretty stable
github: https://
fantasai: Let's go one by one
Rossen_: Objections to moving box to the top?
Resolution: move box to the top
fantasai: Next [missed]
fantasai: ditto for images L3 since we cleaned that up
fantasai: It is now in sync with all the changes and pretty stable
fantasai: Not top level as top, but stable spec with limited testing
<fantasai> https://
Rossen_: Objections to moving images 3 to stable bucket?
Resolution: Move images 3 to stable bucket
Rossen_: Moving css sizing 3 to stable limited test
Resolution: Moving css sizing 3 to stable limited test
fantasai: Next few less sure
fantasai: There was an issue against snapshot about transforms l2 to rough interop bucket
chris: It has one impl
chris: Chrome has a bug on it
fantasai: transforms 2 I thought multi impl of 3d transforms
chris: Yes, but single transform is only one impl
florian: Seems short for rough interop
fantasai: Could add and exclude those bits or save for next year
florian: Save it
fantasai: Other was color adjust 1. Maybe save for next year as well
<emilio> hmm, Gecko ships individual transform properties iirc
chris: Doesn't have any tests so claim of interop is hard to substantiate. Is it only human testable?
fantasai: SHouldn't require human interaction to work. We can do it next year
fantasai: I asked about color and font 4
chris: I responded.
Rossen_: 2021
<gsnedders> WebKit has an impl of individual transform properties, but not shipped in Safari
chris: Color 4 is stable. A few bits are not. Closed enough that I expect cr in jan or feb. stable and getting impl
fantasai: color 4 in stable needs testing or save for 2021
chris: let's say stable and needs testing.
chris: Same with fonts 4
Rossen_: color l4 move to sable needs testing
Resolution: color l4 move to stable needs testing
fantasai: fonts 4 a lot of open issues. Lot of impl happeneing but spec text mayne not stable
<gsnedders> do we not have tests for most of color l4 in WPT from when impls implemented it?
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.
florian: There are 76 open issues. Are they all what you said?
chris: At least 3/4 of them
Rossen_: Seems a little early with number of issues
chris: I'll push a little but I'll fallback with graceful degredation
fantasai: I think we want to save that for next year
chris: Fine
fantasai: Prop publishing the snapshot 2020 as a note
chris: Grid 2
fantasai: Oh, yes. Grid 1 is rough interop but needs more testing. Grid 2 is a superset of 1.
fantasai: Part that's different in L2 has had no issues
fantasai: Might make sense to put them in the same bucket as 1, since what's holding 2 back is the shared part
chris: Makes sense to me
Rossen_: Publishing snapshot as a note. Objections?
fantasai: Didn't resolve on grid 2.
Rossen_: I thought we were not going to move
fantasai: Add to snapshot in same place as grid 1
Rossen_: Objections?
Resolution: Add grid 2 to snapshot in same place as grid 1
Rossen_: And now, are we ready to push snapshot 2020 as a note?
Resolution: Publish snapshot 2020 as a note
chris: What state is it in and when to prepare for publication?
fantasai: Need to make resolution edits. Tomorrow, I'm guessing
Rossen_: Anything else for publication?
fantasai: That's all I got
florian: I'm done
[css-variables?] Higher level custom properties that control multiple declarations
<jensimmons> Does that mean we get a CSS 2020 in 2020??
<astearns> just barely
github: https://
leaverou: I didn't explicitly add this. WE discussed last time and didn't get resolution. Interesting discussion in issue and off GH
<leaverou> https://
leaverou: I summerized current state in ^ comment
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
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
leaverou: Rasises some issues b/c certain values eval differently depending on prop. Hasn't come up that much. Length in some MQs
leaverou: For example, ones we could come up with TabAtkins is %, em values, rem, lh, rlh, currentColor.
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.
leaverou: Agreed don't want partial applicaitons. How to solve?
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
leaverou: Doesn't sound good, but couldn't come with better
leaverou: Addresses single conditional. Css nesting has same partial applicaiton problme. May have condition true for a rule but not decendnents.
leaverou: Might have var warning = on and a value for --warning on parent and different value on the child
leaverou: You again have @if block applied paritially
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
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
leaverou: Can you put example in IRC?
<fantasai> @if (var(...) > 1em) { font-size: 35pt; }
leaverou: I see
leaverou: I'm not sure
leaverou: What would you suggest should happen?
leaverou: It's basically same as if you have inline if
Rossen_: In interest of time, are we ready to resolve or should we take it back to GH and continue there?
leaverou: I suppose we could go back to issue
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
[css-font-loading] Browsers disagree on what it means for a FontFace object to be "CSS-connected", and what effect does it have.
github: https://
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
emilio: Given behavior is all over the place and it's an edge case it would be nice to simplify
<leaverou> 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
TabAtkins: What imacts does ti have on the connection between properties if we just make a flag for css-created
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.
TabAtkins: If keeping the connection I'm unclear what the change is
<fantasai> leaverou, I think it would be super unexpected if you evaluated em against parent font-size, unless all of the if clause lengths evaluate against the parent or something
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
<fantasai> leaverou, and in that case, seems a lot less useful?
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
emilio: afaict you can't do that. cssom method is strings so you need to stringify
<leaverou> 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.
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
emilio: I think so too
Rossen_: Other opinions?
Rossen_: Summary?
emilio: Proposed: Change css-connected by css created bool where it cannot be unset until removed frmo a document
<fantasai> 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
Rossen_: Objecitons?
Resolution: Change css-connected by css created bool where it cannot be unset until removed from a document
emilio: Another issue in this. That was changing definition. Now what happens to document.fonts.add with that object
<fantasai> 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
emilio: It's in the same issue, but needs different resolution
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.
emilio: It does nothing if called on same document which is odd. I think easiest is follow blink
TabAtkins: Meaning it doesn't get added to set?
emilio: Right
TabAtkins: No opinion on throw or ignore. Whichever
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
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?
emilio: I'm okay change to throw
TabAtkins: I'll try that and talk to Rune. If not we'll come back
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
Rossen_: Objections?
Resolution: Have it throw an error
Resolution: have document.fonts.add when called with css create fontface object throw an error
<leaverou> 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
<leaverou> conditions.
[css-color-adjust] It's a bit unfortunate that user stylesheets can't specify arbitrary colors.
github: https://
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
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.
fremy: I think we did consider it. You can spec any color and say forced color adjust none
emilio: Yeah
fremy: You want to do it anyway to disable backplate. You can say antying in stylesheet.
<fantasai> or stick to the forced colors palette
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
Rossen_: Doesn't sound like there's anything ot resolve
emilio: Resolve no change
Rossen_: Objections:
Resolution: Close no change
css-color-adjust] [css-scrollbars] scrollbar-color should probably compute to auto in forced-colors mode.
github: https://
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
<fremy> sounds reasonable to me
Rossen_: Sounds sensible. Other opinions?
Rossen_: Prop: Scrollbar colors should compute to auto in forced-colors mode
Resolution: Scrollbar colors should compute to auto in forced-colors mode
[css-scroll-snap-1] Snap area trapping behavior of non scrollable elements
github: https://
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
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
Rossen_: It's a hack. The hack will work. People will hate the hack. It'll probably end up in css hacks books.
<fantasai> https://
Rossen_: Is it really that difficult that we should go to that extent.
fantasai: Here's comment from impl ^
fantasai: I'm not aware of any requests for the behavior
Rossen_: non-Blink impl with opinion?
smfr: My hunch is it doesn't make sense for non-scrollable things to trap snapping
fantasai: Within that element we don't track snap position
Rossen_: Image in a carosel scenario?
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 inside. We can just not have that behavior and see if someone complaints
Rossen_: In interest of time we can resolve here. If there are no strong arguments for keeping it I'm fine with that
smfr: Looked at WK and would be easy to impl
Rossen_: Argument for reverting doesn't seem to be a problem for WK
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
fantasai: Mark at-risk?
Rossen_: Sensible
Rossen_: Objections?
Resolution: Mark this property at-risk
end
Rossen_: We're at the end of the call.
Rossen_: I'd like to use the last few seconds for the yearly summary
Rossen_: Have resolved and made 52 publishings. 4 notes, 31 wd, 16 cr and 1 REC
Rossen_: Over 192 resolutions
<fantasai> dael+++++++++
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.
Rossen_: Thank you everyone for going through this together and let's hope for a better 2021
[lots of cheering]