Brief   Full   Jump  

Small
Medium
Large

Teal
High contrast
Bluish
Black

Sans-serif
Serif
Monospaced
Close
d
?
Styles

[CSSWG] Minutes Telecon 2016-11-16 [css-ruby][css-inline][css-pseudo][css-2][css-position-3][css-values][css-device-adapt][mediaqueries][css-align][css-selectors-4][css-text][css-transforms]

1 message.

[CSSWG] Minutes Telecon 2016-11-16 [css-ruby][css-inline][css-pseudo][css-2][css-position-3][css-values][css-device-adapt][mediaqueries][css-align][css-selectors-4][css-text][css-transforms]
Dael Jackson   Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:13:34 -0500

www-style > November 2016 > 0085.html

Received on Thursday, 17 November 2016 01:14:38 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: www-style@w3.org.

========================================= These are the official CSSWG minutes. Unless you're correcting the minutes, Please respond by starting a new thread with an appropriate subject line. ========================================= Interaction of initial letter and ruby -------------------------------------- - RESOLVED: initial-letter and ruby is explicitly undefined. - dauwhe will incorporate this change into the spec. Absolutely positioned boxes in inline relatives: not interoperable ------------------------------------------------------------------ - RESOLVED: Standardize on Edge behavior as described by dbaron in the issue (https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/609#issuecomment-259058527) - Rossen will incorporate this change into the spec. Clarify that most (all?) high-dpi devices anchor on pixel, rather than physical, unit ----------------------------------------------------------------- - RESOLVED: Accept pull request from issue 713: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/713 Port HTML note on zoom/accessibility ------------------------------------ - RESOLVED: Take pull request 714: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/714 Steps to CR: Box Alignment, Media Queries 4, Selectors 4, Text 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------- - Media Queries 4 - There are several edits that need to be made to incorporate resolutions from previous telecons. - Most of them can be done by Florian or TabAtkins; ChrisL will need to do a few that relate to Color. - Florian will organize the effort to get these resolutions published. - Florian will try and prepare the only unresolved topic (https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/690) for telecon discussion soon. - Selectors 4 - dbaron will add the language change he needs to write to github and try to write the changes soon. - Box Alignment - There are multiple edits around grid resolutions that need to be edited in before republishing a WD. - After that most remaining issues are around two value keywords and may be forked to a later level. - Text 3 - astearns will try and incorporate the pending edits and will reach out for help if he runs short on time. - Transforms - astearns was actioned to remind people to incorporate the edits from the Lisbon F2F. - There was a general agreement that more people could be involved in incorporating edits into specs. - The "needs edits" flag will begin to be user regularly to indicate issues where this is a resolution reached but the spec needs it edited in. - There was also a suggestion that a flag should be added to indicate what edits would be good for someone new so they can get their feet wet and more experienced editors can focus on harder edits. - The end of year publication deadline is 19 Dec which means the last date for a CR resolution that could potentially be published this year would be 6 December. ===== FULL MINUTES BELOW ====== Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2016Nov/0067.html Present: Rachel Andrew Rossen Atanassov David Baron Bert Bos Tantek Çelik Dave Cramer Alex Critchfield Elika Etemad Daniel Glazman Dael Jackson Brad Kemper Chris Lilley Myles Maxfield Anton Prowse Liam Quin Jen Simmons Geoffrey Sneddon Alan Stearns Lea Verou Greg Whitworth Steve Zilles Scribe: dael Interaction of initial letter and ruby ====================================== astearns: We have enough people so let's start astearns: Does anyone have any additional items? I noted Florian's <Florian> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/654 Florian: I want to clarify I'm not bringing this up because there's a use case, I think we should be clarifying the spec. Florian: For unrelated reasons I was reading the ruby layout section but had initial-letter in the back of my mind. I couldn't tell if it was trying to define something or not. Florian: After diving in further I think the right answer is to disallow initial-letter. If we spend a bit of time convincing ourselves we can close for good. If we think even that is not worth our time we could at least make it explicit that this is undefined rather than have a bit of text trying to define something maybe but it's not clear. Florian: That would save the next person trying to look it up. dauwhe: I'm fine with that. Certainly as a L1 feature I don't think we need it since we haven't seen a lot of use cases. I'm not qualified to design how it would work. Florian: I've spent a fair amount of time looking for use cases and I've failed. It tells me it's not terribly important. When we have ruby on the over side of an initial-letter it's clear, but when it's under it's a lot less clear how it would work. Between the challenge of how to have it work and the lack of evidence it's wanted I think we can disallow. But we can also have the ability to leave it undefined. Florian: It's hard to make sense of what it means. <SteveZ> +1 for leaving it explicitly undefined Rossen: Can we resolve on undefined in case someone has time and finds a use case? Then they can not be compltely blocked out. If we define it as not-supported they're blocked. <tantek> +1 for explicitly undefined <bradk> +1 undefined dauwhe: I'm fine with that. I can add an explicit statement to initial-letter that it's undefined in ruby and come talk to us if there's use cases <Bert> +1 for explicitly undefined <glazou> +1 astearns: Proposed resolution: explicitly say it's undefined. Objections? RESOLVED: initial-letter and ruby is explicitly undefined. astearns: Who will make edits? dauwhe: I can. Florian: I think you should say what's in the github issue exactly <Florian> undefined whether it applies to children of ruby base container boxes and of ruby container boxes dauwhe: Okay. Absolutely positioned boxes in inline relatives: not interoperable ================================================================== astearns: Unfortunately, fremy isn't on. Rossen: I'm here. I went through this briefly before the meeting. Issue on github was converging to spec the Edge behavior and Chrome in ltr case. I saw support from dbaron and I think fremy was looking for resolution on that proposed behavior. Rossen: That's as far as I know. astearns: dbaron described the issue in github as he understands and is happy to standardize on it. dbaron: Edge and Chrome agree for ltr but disagree in other directions. I think Edge does the parallel for other directions and Chrome is doing silly things so I'm happy with Edge. dbaron: Original proposal was standardize on Edge and Chrome behavior which is only a single thing. astearns: Anyone from Chrome with an opinion on their rtl behavior? Rossen: And vertical. astearns: Right. Rossen: In our case everything is logically the same regardless of direction. Rossen: No one here from Chrome or webkit? myles: I'm here from webkit. Rossen: Opinion? myles: Nope. astearns: Proposed resolution: standardize on Edge behavior as desc by dbaron in the issue. <dbaron> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/609#issuecomment-259058527 astearns: And we can have it reopened by Chrome or webkit if necessary. RESOLVED: Standardize on Edge behavior as described by dbaron in the issue (https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/609#issuecomment-259058527) ACTION Rossen incorporate the language for the resolution "standardize on Edge behavior as desc by dbaron in the issue" Clarify that most (all?) high-dpi devices anchor on pixel, rather than physical, unit ================================================================= <Florian> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/708 Florian: We have this whole logic on how CSS pixel works etc and then say for high def use physical inches which is not what they do in general. Florian: We should leave mechanics as they are and only leave print to anchor on physical and switch high def to user reference pixel. ChrisL: I agree I think when it was written [missed] <ChrisL> it was just printers we were thinking of at the time Florian: He says when written only thing high res was printers. <ChrisL> so +1 astearns: My understanding is that sentences would change to say for print media anchor is a physical unit. For devices it's recommended that the anchor be a pixel unit. Florian: Yes and there's a pull request for that. <Florian> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/713 astearns: Let me look at that. astearns: [reads] astearns: Seems fine to me. astearns: Objections? RESOLVED: Accept pull request from issue 713: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/713 Port HTML note on zoom/accessibility ==================================== <astearns> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/714 Florian: This is about css device adapt. It has a zoom descriptor and at least in the viewport equivalent and meta viewport equivalent browsers have started to ignore it because it's user hostile. So there's some scenarios where UA honors when it's a web view in an app. Since it's sometimes honored it's worth specing. This warns authors if you try and disable zoom it might not do it. <tantek> seems reasonable Florian: This is in parallel to one that does the same in HTML. Florian: It makes sense to me but since it's a normative change allowing UAs to ignore makes sense to me. Rossen: We're proposing that we add the warning that suppression of zoom may or may not work. Florian: It's also a normative allowance for browsers to ignore. Rossen: So at this point it becomes a rec for how the zoom should be handled...it's a hint but may not be honored. Florian: Yes. Rossen: I'm fine with that. astearns: Other options? tantek: Sounds good to me. astearns: Thanks. astearns: Proposal: take pull request 714 which allows UA to ignore the zoom factor limit and adds a note on the fact that UA almost always allow users to zoom and gives you some hints about what you might want to do as you're creating a browser. astearns: Objections? RESOLVED: Take pull request 714: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/714 Steps to CR: Box Alignment, Media Queries 4, Selectors 4, Text 3 ================================================================ Media Queries 4 --------------- astearns: fantasai sent an update, but didn't do MQ4 <dbaron> fantasai's update was https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2016OctDec/0130.html <tantek> re: MQ4 https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Amediaqueries-4 <ChrisL> reminder that progress of in-process transitions is at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/blob/master/Transitions.md Florian: Mostly I haven't had time to work on it but there's almost no blocker. There has been an issue raised on pointer, hover, and variance. This is highly controversial discussion at the moment with sides not understanding each other. We'll have to go through it but I haven't prepared today. Florian: As far as I'm aware this is the only issue. astearns: Could you prepare it for next week? Florian: Maybe. I can try. astearns: Is there someone that can help? Florian: It would be good if TabAtkins looks. Florian: We should look in the coming weeks. I can't promise next week, but soon. astearns: Do you have a link? Florian: I'll paste it. <Florian> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/690 astearns: Let's get TabAtkins mentioned on the issue. tantek: Florian, you said only one issue with a normative change? Florian: No, I mean we've resolved on the others and I need to make the changes. tantek: Oh, so the others are still open because the edits haven't been made. Florian: Yes. I think we've resolved on everything else and I just need to make the changes. tantek: Cool. Sounds like we're close. astearns: Do you think you can get the edits in time to publish this year? Florian: Probably. astearns: Can anyone help? Florian: TabAtkins can do it as much as I can, yes. Florian: There were 1 or 2 color related issues that ChrisL said he can do so we're waiting on him for those. astearns: Can I action you to organize the work? ChrisL: Florian if you can point me to the issues? Florian: Yes. <Florian> for Chris: https://drafts.csswg.org/mediaqueries-4/#issue-156eb0fd and https://drafts.csswg.org/mediaqueries-4/#issue-2650c6fe ACTION Florian organize the MQ4 work <trackbot> Created ACTION-800 <Florian> chris: this one is also about color, but I don't *need* your help on it, since we have a clear resolution (IIRC): https://drafts.csswg.org/mediaqueries-4/#issue-d9e3b586 Selectors 4 ----------- astearns: [reads fantasai comment on selectors 4] there's a section for dbaron? dbaron: I'm not the only person that could do it, but I and some others weren't happy with the previous re-write which described selector processing as rtl. astearns: Do you know how to re-write it? dbaron: I hadn't thought about it. I didn't realize until yesterday that she thought I was writing. astearns: We can be pretty sure that she doesn't have time so can you look and see if you can get to it in the next week or two? dbaron: I can look. astearns: Feel free and send something to the list saying it's more work than you can get to. tantek: Which issue is it? <tantek> looking at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aopen%20is%3Aissue%20label%3Aselectors-4%20 dbaron: I think it does exist but I need to look. dbaron: Discussion might predate the github switch. Florian: It does. tantek: It's worth having an issue if it's a WD blocker. astearns: Agreed. ACTION dbaron to set up and issue for the selectors 4 change <trackbot> Created ACTION-801 Box Alignment ------------- <tantek> box alignment is presumably https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aopen%20is%3Aissue%20label%3Acss-align-3%20 astearns: Box Alignment which fantasai wrote needs 1 change for grid items and then could be republished. Then she talks about stripping bits of it so we can just have Grid and Flexbox items. astearns: Does anyone else have additional things to happen to box alignment? astearns: tantek just listed issues. tantek: I'm just asking github. Nothing intelligent. <tantek> is that label:"Needs Edits" is for? <tantek> are we consistently using label:"Needs Edits" ? <tantek> does label:"Needs Edits" mean issue resolved but just needs edits to be made to the draft? astearns: We did resolve the shorthands would be place-* but we don't have syntax for the value which Mats is asking for. astearns: I was supposed to split that into another issue...that's on me. astearns: Who are Box Alignment editors? Just fantasai and TabAtkins? Rossen: I think it's just them. astearns: Would it be good to add another person? It looks like there are resolutions that could have been edited in. Anyone interested in taking it on? [fantasai joins the call] fantasai: Hi! fantasai: I think for alignment most of the issues are around anything with two values. If we drop those we can go to CR quickly. That include the shorthand issues. astearns: Are these edits something you can get to in next few weeks? I'm assuming not. fantasai: I might have a few hours around Thanksgiving. And then hopefully we can make sure anything other than issues around two values is handled. Then someone can strip the two values items out of the spec and do CR. astearns: You said it would be okay to republish with a change to deal with grid items. Is that a first step? fantasai: That's a good idea. Pushing that edit would be good. I think it need corresponding edits in Grid. astearns: So first is get intrinsic ratio edits in, republish as a WD. fantasai: Yeah. If TabAtkins has time he could do that. Editing in resolutions ---------------------- astearns: To answer tantek there is a Needs Edits label in github. I don't think we're using that and it would be fine if we did. tantek: It could indicate an issue has reached resolution as well. astearns: That's how I would interpret the label. There are issues with a note saying that there's a resolution with a minutes link. It's not easy to see what's awaiting edits. It would be good to have that label. tantek: Especially for things trying to take to CR. <rachelandrew> I would be happy to help with Grid or Box Alignment edits, I know those specs well although might need some initial help with process. tantek: It also may help when you've asked for additional editors. It could alert the broader community if you want to get your feet wet by submitting edits here's a bunch of them. astearns: We could have the starter issue label too to indicate there's some that don't need years of experience. Some things, like the selectors one, we need a dbaron level of experience. tantek: Yes, this could also let experienced people focus on harder ones. astearns: Thanks rachelandrew for volunteering. Look at the issues list and see if there's something you could put a pull request for. Text 3 ------ astearns: Last spec is Text 3. Still has some issues, but could be published. koji are you on? astearns: This is one where there are a bunch of edits anyone could do. astearns: I may have time in next week or two. If I run out of time I'll ask for help. <tantek> +1 to Text WD astearns: Are there any other publishing topics people want to bring up? Terribly old WD? <ChrisL> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/blob/master/Transitions.md ChrisL: I would like to point out that we have a document for transition requests in progress. If you do a request this should say latest status. <gregwhitworth> ChrisL: isn't Tables done? That should probably be updated Transforms ---------- fantasai: Transitions, animations, and transforms are all likely out of date. astearns: We did resolve in Lisbon to push 3d transforms to next level and push transforms to PR. Is anyone working on that? ACTION astearns poke people about getting transforms edits done. <trackbot> Created ACTION-802 astearns: gregwhitworth had a question on table transition? ChrisL: I'll check and update the doc. Anyone else can update it too. Last publication date --------------------- astearns: tantek had a process question about last publish date for CR this year. astearns: When does publishing moratorium start? ChrisL: Dec 19 <ChrisL> December 19 - Jan 1 astearns: So last chance date for CR would be a week or two before? ChrisL: Yeah. Florian: So we have 2 weeks. tantek: We'd need CR call before. ChrisL: You have to have a transition request and have a week between. Call can happen between. If DoC is in good shape you can skip the transition call. We're getting better at that. tantek: I noticed. tantek: CR transition requires manual publish. ChrisL: So it's a Tuesday or Thursday, yes. ChrisL: The system can't handle the patent policy aspect. tantek: What's the last Tuesday or Thursday before Dec 19 because that will be busy? <gsnedders> Thursday 15th ChrisL: 19th is a Monday so Thursday the 15th tantek: So call completed by 13th and stage 14th? ChrisL: Correct. ChrisL: So 6th is the hard deadline to put in a request. ChrisL: Nicely done tantek that's good to have. * tantek is slowly becoming a project manager * ChrisL grins astearns: Let's see what we can get done by the end of this month. Possibly all the way to the 6th if you really want to see how quickly things can be done...or not. astearns: Any other topics? If not we can close early. astearns: Thanks everyone for calling in!