Brief   Full   Jump  

Small
Medium
Large

Teal
High contrast
Bluish
Black

Sans-serif
Serif
Monospaced
Close
d
?
Styles

Minutes Telecon 2017-11-01 [css-values] [css-ui-3] [css-text-decor] [css-cascade] [cssom] [css-sizing]

1 message.

Minutes Telecon 2017-11-01 [css-values] [css-ui-3] [css-text-decor] [css-cascade] [cssom] [css-sizing]
Dael Jackson   Wed, 1 Nov 2017 20:44:28 -0400

www-style > November 2017 > 0001.html

Received on Thursday, 2 November 2017 00:45:22 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. ========================================= Values & Units -------------- - astearns created a bunch of tests for clamping behavior and requested review before TPAC: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/434#issuecomment-341267463 CSS UI 3 -------- - RESOLVED: Publish an updated CR of CSS UI 3. Text Decoration 3 ----------------- - Text Decoration 3 should be ready for CR as soon as internationalization finishes their review. CSS Cascade ----------- - RESOLVED: Remove this (Override Declarations) from both levels of CSS Cascade and replacing the reference with a note. Sizing ----- - RESOLVED: Take 'stretch' and 'fit-content' to level 4 and drop a note in level 3 noting where they went and pointing to next level. - The github issue (https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1913) to restrict 'stretch' and 'fit-content' to width/height and max-* (excluding min-*) didn't have any strong opinions. Individuals were encouraged to review and see if they can think of a use case before TPAC. ===== FULL MINUTES BELOW ====== Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2017Nov/0000.html Present: Rachel Andrew David Baron Tantek Çelik Elika Etemad Dael Jackson Dean Jackson Tomoya Kimura Myles Maxfield Michael Miller François Remy Melanie Richards Florian Rivoal Alan Stearns Regrets: Tab Atkins Dave Cramer Benjamin De Cock Tony Graham Thierry Michel Naina Raisinghani Shane Stephens Sergio Villar Senin Greg Whitworth Eric Willigers Scribe: dael Agenda Setting & Announcements ============================== astearns: I have 5 minutes after. We can start and get through what we can. astearns: Any extra items? florian: I have a small one. Nothing extra to discuss, but something remind people. florian: I asked people a while back to review my line-height testing. I'm not seeing anything in github. Discussion will be better if people look. astearns: Is it on TPAC agenda? florian: I'll make sure it is. <florian> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1796 <florian> (and the issues linked from that one) dino: I wanted to let people know we update our blog post about what was called constant() and now called env() and the beta OSs that shipped yesterday support that. <fantasai> \^_^/ dino: Our shipping impl is now in line with the group decision. astearns: Thanks for that quick change. Spec Rec Progress ================= Values & Units -------------- astearns: I needed to make some tests for clamping at used value time for V&U. I finally got to that today. <astearns> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/434#issuecomment-341267463 astearns: I posted my tests here ^ astearns: I think this is something we should review at TPAC to give people time to take a look and see if there's something wrong with my tests. astearns: Anything else to volunteer? CSS UI 3 -------- florian: CSS UI we resolved to try and go to PR. Chris and I reached out to PLH to see if we could do PR, he thinks not due to changes and we should do a short CR loop. <tantek> wow what were the normative changes? florian: Normative changes were on cursor: auto which added that you should look like text over selectable as well as editable text. Minor but normative. <tantek> but it was non-substantial because it was done to match impls <tantek> that makes no sense, that category of normative change is supposed to be ok from CR->PR <tantek> frustrating florian: The other normative seemed like the kind that wouldn't block, but that's the one that would be trouble. Normally that's Ralph's call, but PLH doesn't believe Ralph would rule differently. florian: I'd rather go along with the process then try and argue. I would rather try and change process later. <tantek> Florian can you add me on any email thread on this? <tantek> This is inconsistently enforced <tantek> No this is not part of the process formally <tantek> This is plh being more nitpicky than he should <tantek> and inconsistently with other CR->PR transitions astearns: tantek I'll forward the email thread. fantasai: What's the writing modes status? astearns: Before that, shall we resolve on publishing updated CR of CSS UI? astearns: Objections? RESOLVED: Publish an updated CR of CSS UI. <tantek> updated CR would add 4 weeks right? <florian> tantek: yes, +4 weeks <tantek> and then we may run into publication bans <tantek> ugh <gsnedders> tantek: if there's a new exclusion period, yes Writing Modes ------------- astearns: Writing modes. astearns: Who took on the publishing tasks? fantasai: No idea. astearns: Okay. I'm not sure either. I'll follow up on that. <fantasai> https://drafts.csswg.org/Transitions fantasai: Status on transitions page says working on how to move at risk features, but the edits were done a while ago. CR doesn't need tests, so that shouldn't be holding it up. astearns: I'll follow up this week and we can revisit at TPAC. astearns: Anything more on spec progress? Text Decoration 3 ----------------- <fantasai> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013 fantasai: I have DoC for CSS 3 text decoration mostly complete. I'm waiting on i18n to respond. Everything has been edited in. fantasai: There's one issue where I don't know what to do. astearns: Do you expect to get more than an okay from i18n? fantasai: I don't know. I'll track Richard down next week. astearns: And does the one remaining issue need to go on TPAC agenda? fantasai: 16 requires i18n to say they want a change. The other one had concerns raised but nothing actionable. astearns: And the one where you don't know what to do? fantasai: For 16. There was a discussion on it on the mailing list and I asked if they wanted the issue re-opened and I haven't gotten a response. astearns: So it's waiting on feedback. fantasai: Yes, unless anyone knows a lot about emphasis marks they can comment. astearns: Given we have a small number of people on the call, does anyone feel there are items on the agenda that should wait? Or are there some we can get through? CSS Cascade =========== Are 'Override declarations' still a thing? ------------------------------------------ github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1385 fremy: From the look I took it's not referenced by CSS. I think it's fine to drop, but I don't know if somebody has a strong opinion. Not easy without enough people on the call. dbaron: I think we (Gecko) did remove the override stylesheet API if we had it. astearns: Let's leave it as that. We have two options and we'll come back when there's more people. fremy: Or we can resolve and if someone disagrees we re-open. fremy: In the interest of progress. astearns: That's fair. I would have liked to see an opinion from Tab with the issue. fantasai: Tab and I don't have an opinion. We discussed last week. astearns: Looking at the issue the last comment suggests to make a note in last level of cascade spec that we can simplify and have a note. fantasai: I'm happy to take edits to remove but we can add a note pointing to it that there was a thing that no one implements. astearns: This is only next level of CSS cascade? fantasai: Both. If the feature doesn't exist, it doesn't exist anywhere. fantasai: Both are in CR anyways. astearns: Objections to removing this from both levels of CSS cascade and replacing the reference with a note? RESOLVED: Remove this from both levels of CSS cascade and replacing the reference with a note. astearns: Thanks for taking on these edits fantasai CSSOM ===== Clarify behavior of window.getComputedStyle on detached subtrees, and the definition of "the root element"' ----------------------------------------------------------------- github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1548 fremy: I just took a look at the rest of the agenda and I don't think we can resolve on anything except maybe 5. They're not editorial. It would be weird to resolve without someone from chrome team. dbaron: One comment on this issue. The issue so far is a conversation between multiple Gecko people. It would be nice for another impl to look. fremy: Point taken. I will. astearns: Let's get a few more browsers commenting before we take this on again. Sizing ====== Define which replaced elements are affected by width: % rule zeroing min-content -------------------------------------------------------------------- github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1889 <fantasai> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-sizing-3/#min-content-zero fantasai: We added an appendix that lists the elements that should be 0ed out. We put all of dbaron's comment in the issue. We're asking for review fantasai: Please let me know if there's something to add or remove. We'll close once there has been review and dbaron has given a yes. astearns: dbaron have you looked? dbaron: I haven't. <fantasai> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-sizing-3/#intrinsic-contribution fantasai: Behavior is in the 2nd paragraph of section 4.2 astearns: Sounds like we need to call for review of this change. Then we can resolve to close. astearns: It's a pretty minor change. astearns: Anything else on this? Defer 'stretch' and 'fit-content' keywords to level 4 ----------------------------------------------------- github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1912 fantasai: TabAtkins and I noticed the majority of open issues or things we need to add is related to 'stretch'. The rest have a consistent definition, have been or have been discussed being shipped. fantasai: Unless someone has a different opinion we'd like to drop these two properties and then take the spec to CR once people have gotten a chance to check. fremy: Reasonable. dbaron: Should we add a note where they were saying they were dropped? fantasai: I can do that. astearns: Objections to taking stretch and fit-content to level 4 and dropping a note noting where they went <dbaron> ... and pointing to the next level RESOLVED: Take 'stretch' and 'fit-content' to level 4 and dropping a note noting where they went and pointing to next level. fantasai: [missed] The one with the argument relies on min-content and max-content to it doesn't depend ong stretch <dbaron> I think [missed] was fantasai proposing that the fit-content() function stays in this level, but the fit-content keyword moves to the next level astearns: Did anyone implement fit-content? fantasai: I'm not sure, but I think the spec needs more work. My plan for L4 fwiw is to have stretch, fit-content, contain keyword (because we wanted to work on it with stretch), and add an aspect ratio feature. fantasai: That's the plan for L4 and I think TabAtkins and I can draft that pretty easily. astearns: I was just wondering if we were trying to move sizing 3 to CR if fit-content would need to move for impl status. But that can happen when we get to next publishing stage. Restrict 'stretch' and 'fit-content' to width/height and max-* -------------------------------------------------------------- github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1913 fantasai: TabAtkins and I couldn't figure out a good use case for using them as a min width or height. We were suggesting to drop from min. fantasai: I can't think of a single reason you want to do it so it's not worth effort on testing and impl. astearns: This is L3 and L4 because you want to restrict fit-content function? fantasai: Yes, I think so. dbaron: I find it weird because it's about exposing low level concepts. Even if I can't come up with a use case off the top of my head it doesn't seem implausible. It's useful to have primitive concepts exposed when those concepts exist. fantasai: Fair. fantasai: I don't have a strong opinion. astearns: I'm wondering if there is a case where you're using custom properties that are set to one of these things and it would make sense to use that custom property value for a set of regular min and max prop. I'm not coming up with an actual case though. astearns: dbaron would you rather have them put back in? Or are you okay with then off for now until someone comes up with a reason. dbaron: I'd rather put back in, but I don't feel that strongly. fantasai: Anyone else have an opinion? fremy: I can't find a use case either, but I don't have a strong opinion. I wouldn't want either remove or added. Either is fine. I can understand both points. astearns: What about if we leave this for a week and bring it up at TPAC with more people and more thought for possible use cases? Or just some stronger arguments for consistency. astearns: All I'm hearing is a lot of I'm not feeling strongly about this. astearns: Is this okay to leave for now fantasai? fantasai: No problem. astearns: Anything else to bring up on the call? astearns: For those coming to TPAC travel safe. We'll see you next week. <tantek> thanks!