– DRAFT –
Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Working Group Teleconference

<argyle> sounds good Alan

astearns: Thanks to everyone for calling in on time. We'll wait a couple more minutes to get the list of people online to fill out

astearns: Let's start. Any changes to the agenda?

[css-color-4] What serialization should be used when using color(lab ...) syntax to specify a lab color?

github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5825

chris: I added some comments before the call to clarify the options. two questions, what to do for lab and lch and what do for extended precesion

chris: Spec says if you use lab and lch lch serializes to lab. But if you do color (lab) it serielizes to color. Suggested is all three serialize to lab. I'm willing but wanted feedback to if it's an improvement

leaverou: On one hand have the rule values serialize to shortest form. Might be helpful for authors if number of formats returned is fewer than ones spec.

<TabAtkins> We shouldn't change the specified function like this - color() should remain color()

leaverou: I can see arguments for serializing anything that doesn't need backwards compat as color

astearns: TabAtkins mentioned something on IRC. I believe color emains color and it's only when serialized with a bare lch or lab

chris: correct

<chris> Tab, not a proposal

astearns: I can see argument for shortest that if your color happens to have a lab we could serialize to that

TabAtkins: Confused. First post on thread asks for that. Color with lab color space to serialize to lab function

TabAtkins: My assumption is lab should be used when refer to color of lab space

chris: I hadn't read as meaning that. I read as unclear and said spec says what to do. Then it drifted to should we harmonize

TabAtkins: WE shoudln't change function in a major way. They should get back out what they put in. Color function has a lot more functionality than individual color functions. Would be strange to lose that. In TypedOM it would serialize to form w/o fallbacks

chris: Agree. If you look at my A and B options I don't propose do away. A is continue as is. B is serialize as color(lab)

chris: Clearer?

TabAtkins: Yes

TabAtkins: Taking that opinion we shouldn't do B because unexpected. I think maybe not A b/c I find it weird

chris: When discussed previously seems to be what people want.

TabAtkins: That's true

<argyle> i like option B as well

plinss: I agree with TabAtkins it's strange if functions changed. If we get to world with typed om where it serliazes as the same function the author created. Will make a world of hurt if functions change, esp if inconsistent

<leaverou> leaverou: hsl() also serializes as rgb(), so lch serializing as lab is the same

astearns: argyle you mentioned you like changing in IRC?

<TabAtkins> Note that the TypedOM will give trivial conversions to whatever function form you want.

argyle: I like it. I am acknlowedging hsl serializes to rgb. It is the common space. Most common is where tried to serialize. I like in option b you can write in either syntax and get the superset. You get the higher order. It seems like it upgrades colors not downgrade or transfer.

<bkardell_> of the two I like B better too, I think - but it's really hard to say without actually using it and living with it for a while :-p

chris: I see a comment the typed om gives color conversion functions. That's not clear to me. I thought that was case but I think I see it gives a null string. Discussion on twitter it should be separate spec.

chris: I believe in future there will be color conversion functions, though.

chris: That's broader. I could type hsl and get lab. That's much broader.

<TabAtkins> That Twitter discussion is not reflective of the current spec or my continued intention, fwiw.

leaverou: Even though typed om helps b/c authors don't parse manually, they still have to handle different formats b/c closely tied. If lab serializes as color(lab) it's unclear to me what typed om class will corrispond. serialization or specified?

TabAtkins: typed om reifies to the class function it would serialize to. spec you get what you put in and computed it's rules for conversion

TabAtkins: Another reason not to change into color is class corrispondant to color is more difficult to work with than lab or lch class. If people using anything else would prefer to give easiest to work with.

<fremy> What TabAtkins just said makes a lot of sense to me

leaverou: The more different classes and author could expect they need to handle. If they don't know color thye have to handle out

TabAtkins: Can convert to any form they want

astearns: And if they return color they would still need to deal with first param with all the variations

chris: Hearing arguments on both sides but no clear consensus.

smfr: Can you summarize?

<astearns> options: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5825#issuecomment-763722847

chris: The ones in GH. Option A is serialize lab and lch with shortest form which is lab.

chris: Option B i slbal and lch as color(lab)

<TabAtkins> I was worried about that because Sam proposed it in the original post. ^_^

chris: TabAtkins was worred about an option c that serializes color(labl) as lab. I only see objections to that.

smfr: Have to consider along with serliazation of rgba and srgb. If you look at comment from 3 days ago from Sam he suggests [reads] and lab is odd one out

smfr: One of the considerations is if you used color for srgb you want to round trip precision.

chris: Agree in general. color 3 required round to 8 bits. Currently min is 8 bits on both. Happy to increase for color which might make sense. I don't know how much existing code exists elsewhere but none for color form.

chris: It's always been 0 to 1 so you had precision

leaverou: If this is higher precision we could consider opt in to other handling

<TabAtkins> My preferred option: serialize lab() to lab(), lch() to lch(), and color(anything) to color(). I'd accept serializing lch() to lab() if necessary, but would prefer to avoid that.

smfr: One approach would be consider rgh/hsl as legacy and all newer colors serialize with color function

chris: I can see that as clear

leaverou: TabAtkins would you argue for changing how hsl serializes?

TabAtkins: Long past impossible at this point

TabAtkins: In an ideal world yes, but the compat is out of our hands

chris: I quite like smfr suggestion. Color rgb serialzes as itself. Therefore lab serializes as color(lab).

smfr: That falls out. Can see it's annoying for authors

chris: That's the case in both suggestions. We could change that

TabAtkins: Only reaon lch serializes to lab is analogy?

chris: Yes

smfr: My thought was color function is used to describe the color space and therefore lab and lch are lumpped together. Maybe not great for serialization

chris: Little legacy, but ongoing impl. Time to change it is now. In 6 months it's too late to change

TabAtkins: b/c you came in later, I'm moderatly against normalizing to color function because typed om form is a lot more complicated than individual color functions. I would prefer to give the simplier forms if they put them in.

smfr: Reasonable

<TabAtkins> Omitting the srgb keyword is stadnard "shortest form serialization" stuff, I'm fine with that.

chris: Since talking about sRGB. The first param is the color space and it defaults to srgb. Two ways to default it. If code is looking at this in serialized forms maybe it's cleaner if it always has an explicit color space. I can argue either way. Shortest serializable or explicit color space

smfr: Question, if you spec rgba with % which means >8 bit. If that serializes do you maintain precision?

<TabAtkins> Proposal: the sRGB functions all serialize to rgb() (partially legacy, and partially consistency). All other functions serialize to themselves.

chris: Currently, in color 4 they are no longer int. You can do 137.5 and it's supposed to go to highest possible with a min of 8 bits. Most impl seems ot truncate

<leaverou> TabAtkins: hwb() too?

smfr: IN WK we use color function to trigger higher precision storage.

<leaverou> TabAtkins: it's an sRGB function, but no legacy implications

chris: Lots of int precision on the web. I've read people worry about blowing up dom if it's bigger

<TabAtkins> leaverou: Yes, that's the "partially consistency" I mentioned. ^_^

astearns: TabAtkins has a proposal to have all legacy rgb serialize to rgb and all new serliaze to themselves. Sounds like people are okay with new functions serialize to themselves

chris: That would amount to option A.

astearns: Option A except lch serializes to lch

<TabAtkins> But I'm also fine with just "the current legacy functions serialize to rgb(), everything else to itself"

chris: Okay

leaverou: If we do srgb to itself it also makes sense to keep lab as itself. It's same thing, really

chris: Right

astearns: One person I haven't heard from in a bit is plinss. Would you be okay with this?

plinss: That's what I argued for. I don't believe functions should change to other functions

<argyle> 👍🏻

astearns: Prop: All new color functions serialize to themselves

Resolution: All new color functions serialize to themselves

<TabAtkins> color(srgb 1 0 0) should seiralize to color(1 0 0), per shortest-serialization

chris: Follow up on that. If I say color(srgb) it's same as color(rgb) if i just give rgb. Should they both go to the same form and if so which?

astearns: TabAtkins says shortest omitting defaults

<bkardell_> +1 lea

leaverou: Not sure it's good to have this form without a color space

<fantasai> +1 lea

chris: I see both arguments. Strong opinions?

<argyle> +1 lea

smfr: I would prefer srgb as explicit

<TabAtkins> I'd be fine with removing the optionality of the keyword

plinss: We're talking about the color function optionally losing srgb?

chris: Making it mandatory

plinss: When it serializes out you don't have it

chris: That's one option. We're talking if you want srgb you have to say so

leaverou: And I see agreement for that in irc

<florian> +1

plinss: Gotcha. no strong opinion

chris: I think it's consistent with your argument plinss

plinss: It's fine. If color space is optional in function I'm fine if it serializes without, but also fine with it not optional

leaverou: Can make optional in the future. If we start optional we cna't change

chris: I'm fine removing the optionality

<JaseW> What’s the reason Zakim pinged me?

astearns: Make the first param in the color funciton, the color space, required

Resolution: Make the first param in the color function, the color space, required

chris: I can edit this in

astearns: Something about precision?

<TabAtkins> Just clarifying - does the first resolution apply to hwb() serializing as itself?

chris: Yes, if you use srgb you expect higher precision. Min is 8 bits right now. I'd like to increase. P3 min is 10 bits per component. COuld make same

astearns: Prop: Hvae the minimum precision raised to 10 bits

Resolution: Have the minimum precision raised to 10 bits

chris: hwb is same as hsl where it comes out as rgb or rgba

<TabAtkins> I'm fine either way fwiw

<TabAtkins> non-sRGB functions

astearns: Resolution about all color functions is ammended to different way of expressing rgb?

chris: I see hwb as similar to hsl

astearns: Amended resoltuion is now non-rgb color functions serialize to themselves

chris: Yes

astearns: Is that first part of issue or all covered?

chris: Covered that. I think I'm good

leaverou: If color srgb has higher precision and difference between that and srgb is maintained can the colors opt into better interpolation? Right now we have backwards compat but doing it in lch is far better. If they don't have backwards compat concerns maybe they can opt into better

<argyle> well said Lea!

astearns: leaverou can I ask you to open a separate issue? That way people can weigh in on GH

[css-pseudo] Who is currently using CSSPseudoElement and what events can target them?

github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4619

florian: This is more of a request for information. CSS Pseudol Element class exists and is an event target, but it's not clear what API uses and what events it recieves. When the issue was raised I think intent was figure out who should we talk to when we refine events on Pseudos

florian: This has been sitting in GH for a while without feedback. This is a louder call to figure out who is the crowd interested

emilio: I think main consumer is web animations. like css animations that target css pseudo elements. Not aware of other consumers.

florian: I'm a little fuzzy on this b/c decision to stop using pseudo elements as a class on animation, but pointed out there still is. But that would be the group

astearns: One of the reasons we pushed to have css pseduo element historically is we thought regions could be made out of pseudo elements but that's moot at this point

florian: I see reasons why it's useful, but before drafting new things it would be good to know what's done

gregwhitworth: Are yous aying you can't animation pseudo elements?

florian: No, but I believe API shape of animations has changed and it's no longer done through pseudol element class set up in pseudos 4. I could be wrong. A bit out of my area

astearns: Anyone else with a known dependency or use case for css pseudo element as an event target?

astearns: So it may be down to whatever use case web animations might have?

florian: Plus what sanketj and I want to add

sanketj: Does anyone use pseudo element not as an event target? Web animation sis only thing I could tell which has since been dropped. I didn't find any users of pseudo element at all

florian: I have use cases, but not existing usage

iank_: I think this has been one of the things that's an obvious gap on api side. Nice to get target if it's exposed but not high priority so hasn't been impl

sanketj: Should we try to remove css pseudo element and come at it again in a different way? Not sure the process

astearns: If there are no consumers and little impl interest it's plausable to remove it and retain intent of fixing the hole in the API. Need motivating use cases to spur impl interest

florian: I don't know. If we suspect API shape is wrong maybe remove. but I believe there are use cases that we're slowly getting ot. Having a place where we accumulate our way to useful thing it would be good. If we start by deleting it doesn't speed up getting there

astearns: Fair point

astearns: sanketj do you have an argument for deletion?

sanketj: Not specifically. originally looked around highlight api and there are not highlight events. pseudo element being an event target prompted us to look. I don't think I have a way to have it useful in highlight, but I don't have a strong reason to delete or keep

florian: I have other use cases to look into in the near future. I'd like to keep working. For now it's hear so no rush to delete

iank_: One thing to keep in mind is only before and after pseudo elements make sense with this API. Perhaps merging in that this might change is a path

sanketj: Yes, only tree abiding was designed originally I think. I don't believe it works for range based

iank_: Yeah, for example doesn't make sense for ::first-line

fantasai: Would work for any, but only defined for tree abiding. Every pseudo element has originating element. If you highlight it will cross multiple pseudo elements as you cross multiple elements

iank_: In related to geometry apis and event propegation the tree abiding ones are much siplier

florian: I'd suggest slap a warning across this area of the spec saying don't rush to impl but if you have use cases or problems bring forward

<iank_> sorry sanketj :)

<sanketj> thanks for covering it :)

astearns: As a way forward put a warning on this part of the spec that this is early and needs fleshing out. Do we close this issue with a reoslution to have a warning or do we need to dive into web animations usage more

florian: Since we're not resolving to delete it I don't think we need the explaination urgently

astearns: Prop: Add a warning to the section and close this issue

astearns: Objecitons?

Resolution: Add a warning to the section and close this issue but continue work

should CSSPseudoElement have a pseudo() method? Would it be worth considering having two separate properties, Element element and Element|CSSPseudoElement parent

github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3836#issuecomment-502344378

florian: Because it is now possible to have pseudo attached to pseudos. In addition to element class having pseudo pseudo element class has apseudo.

florian: Another question, pseduo element class has an element method that returns originating element. Pseudo on a pseudo do you want originating or parent pseduo?

florian: Original thought is return the parent. Later proposed we should have both. Element returns originating element, but also have a parent method that returns parent pseudo if there is one and if there isn't returns originating

florian: Got thumbs up so proposal is accept

astearns: If it's not nested parent returns nothing?

florian: Returns same as element

astearns: First is element ancestor and second is immediatate parent

florian: Yes

fantasai: One thought, if we extend to non-tree-abiding parent is not quite the right word. If you select first-letter element parent is the first line or some weird nesting. We could call it parent and say these things are special

florian: It would be walking up hierarchy step by step. Just need to define weird cases

fantasai: As long as people say it can be repurposed to not quite a parent it's fine to me. Just wanted to point out it's going to be a bit weird

astearns: Other opinions?

astearns: Hearing people in favor

astearns: Prop: Use the existing parent function in css pseudo element as returning fifrst element ancestor and add an immediate parent that could poss return a pseudo element

Resolution: Use the existing parent function in css pseudo element as returning firrst element ancestor and add an immediate parent that could possibly return a pseudo element

Link "Applies to", "Canonical order" in propdef tables

github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3827#issuecomment-759849067

<fantasai> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-cascade-4/#changes

fantasai: Have some text we can link to. Cascade 4 has a nice section of it. Needs to be republished as a WD. Changes here ^ one issue still being discussed so may not be able to publish today

fantasai: Other major changes we did is define processing of elements not in tree and define term property

fantasai: Other problem is that canonical order is only defined in cssom editors draft. That's far ahead of tr and it is behind on edits.

fantasai: In order to crosslink we need to republish cssom. But I don't know state of draft and if it should be published or needs more edits.

fantasai: We can't make fix to propdef tables as long as spec is out of date

astearns: emilio do you have an idea of if we could publish cssom draft as is?

emilio: I think we could publish. A few fixes i'd like but they interact with HTML

astearns: Could resolve to publish a new WD of cssom as-is?

TabAtkins: One edit that might be good to pull in which is remove color serialization so we can defer to color 4

chris: I have removed it. But there's a related issue where it keeps linking to color 3 and I want to stop it. But the edits are in

astearns: Prop: Fix the draft of cssom so it points to color 4 and then publish

astearns: Objections?

<chris> +1

Resolution: Fix the draft of cssom so it points to color 4 and then publish

astearns: What do we want to do on cascade?

<fantasai> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-cascade-4/#changes

fantasai: Cascade has an open issue on same-origin check for the quirks mode. After that we should be ready to publish. That should be most of the outstanding edits. Changes list is here^

fantasai: We made 5 or 6 changes

astearns: Resolving that one issue will take what?

fantasai: TabAtkins would know

TabAtkins: I'd have to review to see if Anne responded

fantasai: He did

TabAtkins: Is he saying I'm right? If yes it's easy

<fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4838#issuecomment-762052244

fantasai: I don't know. There's the comment ^

fantasai: Do we want to take a resoltuion to publish once you and Anne decide wording

astearns: Prop: Publish cascade after resoltuion of 4838

Resolution: Publish cascade after resolution of 4838

astearns: Anything else on this?

[css-overflow-3] Clarify when overflow-clip-margin has an effect

github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5800

astearns: Let's try

vmpstr: Clarifying a sentence in overflow that says [reads]. Clarifying what "this property" refers to

vmpstr: Paint containment clips, would like overflow:clip to extend paint containment

florian: Yes, contain:paint applys. Poorly worded, editor will make it better

astearns: Will handle by making it explicit contain:paint applies?

florian: Not sure how I'll rephrase but the answer is it applies and we'll fix the sentence

vmpstr: Maybe remove the sentence?

florian: Possibly. It's 3am so I'm not awake enough to draft the sentence on the fly.

fantasai: Can't remove the sentence b/c it doesn't apply to most elements. Some clipping effects it applies and some where it doesn't

[css-sizing-4] Expected size of replaced element with aspect-ratio but width/height auto

github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5721

fantasai: cbiesinger brough up case of image with intrinisic size. Set a-r that's not that of the image. Previously not possible. Question is what is this supposed to do? Have a jpeg that's 100x100, set a-r as 1-1. What does it render

fantasai: No clear answers. leaverou made a poll with inconclusive results. We need an answer. Looking for opinions and ideas about why it should be an answer

TabAtkins: I have a preferred answer here. The a-r property by virtue of it being explicit it should be honored and then we round sizing as normal. Use ratio determining, take natural size, process trhough spec a-r and use it. Added a comment on GH

TabAtkins: In the jpeg example of 1x1 a-r we set width to natural width and then we make it square. You asked for it to be square so I think people would expect that

<fremy> LGTM too

iank_: I agree with TabAtkins' analysis

<fantasai> wfm

astearns: Some consensus. Might be easiest to get a good answer by declaring an answer and use the get an answer by saying something wrong and getting people to say why wrong

astearns: Prop: Take TabAtkins's last comment in GH and resolve on that

cbiesinger: Takes writing mode into account?

TabAtkins: Yeah, ratio determining for axis takes writing mode into account

Resolution: Take TabAtkins's last comment in GH

astearns: Thank you everybody

end