- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 16:19:40 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `white space collapsing/processing in text-combine horizontal`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: Make this undefined in L3. Define interoperable behavior in L4 and add tests to L4 test suite` * `RESOLVED: publish updated CR of Writing Modes L3` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <dael> TOpic: white space collapsing/processing in text-combine horizontal<br> <dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4139#issuecomment-513589921<br> <dael> fantasai: There was an issue on www-style on how we handle whitespace at the beginning of a [missed] string where we want all text combined. Spaces within text straightforward how it's for whitespace, but question on start and end<br> <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/commit/53a5349823a794923be057e29038e021f523451f<br> <dael> fantasai: Makes sense handled same as if inline block. Collapsible whitespace is collapsed away. Changes to make this explicit. Currently say composition of text is as if inline block. Makes it explicit whitespace collapses in that manner.<br> <dael> astearns: Matches impl except Safari. THere's a safari engineer to make the change?<br> <dael> fantasai: I haven't tested all impl. Safari engineer said it's reasonable<br> <dael> Rossen_: For the TR portion or writing modes?<br> <dael> fantasai: For L3<br> <dael> Rossen_: Why make this behavior change that late?<br> <dbaron> s/[missed]/tate-chu-yoko (縦中横)/<br> <dael> florian: Clarification, not behavior change. Already said lay text out as if inlineblock. Points out that that means you have to handle whitespace at beginning and end in a specific way<br> <fantasai> Looks like Gecko would need changes to comply<br> <dael> Rossen_: Proposing add a note<br> <dael> fantasai: Proposing addnormative text<br> <dael> florian: It's clarification of existing text that says do layout as inline block. It's phrased as normative that you're supposed to layout as inline block which means do this thing and pointing to css text<br> <dael> Rossen_: What would be effect...reading to catch up on IRC. Listing to fantasai and she was saying we will have to enter CR for this?<br> <fantasai> testcase http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C!DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0A%3Cp%20style%3D%22writing-mode%3A%20vertical-rl%22%3EA%3Cspan%20style%3D%22text-combine-upright%3A%20all%22%3Etext%3C%2Fspan%3E%3Cspan%20style%3D%22text-combine-upright%3A%20all%22%3Etext%20%20%3C%2Fspan%3EB%3C%2Fp%3E<br> <dael> florian: Already have to go through CR due to other changes. Since there was some disagreement on what this meant we clarify<br> <dael> AmeliaBR: L3 and L4 are as CR we're republish CR anyways.<br> <dael> florian: As fantasai mentioned a safari engineer was wlling to change. afaict this does not match impl though it matches spec<br> <dael> astearns: Rossen_ was asking process. We'd like L3 as fast as possible. If we clarify we need to update test suite and make sure we have enough impl passing. From process might be easier to clarify in L4.<br> <dael> florian: L3 needs to republish anyway so no difference. In terms of passing maybe. Given disagreement leaving it undefined for now and clarify in L4 might make it easier for publications<br> <dael> fantasai: In at risk?<br> <dael> Rossen_: THought it was.<br> <dael> florian: All value is in L3. Automatic was at risk and removed. Behavior wasn't at risk.<br> <dael> astearns: And putting this in L3 at risk if we take it out means there'sanother publishing churn<br> <dael> florian: No, at risk you can remove without repub<br> <dael> astearns: True<br> <dael> florian: Need new CR due to other nromative changes<br> <dael> astearns: Why nec to put in L3 given L4 is the thing we're working on. Clarifications in later modules is appropriate<br> <dael> florian: Given L3 text is ambig if we want it in L4 we can explicit undefine in L3. Does that work for you fantasai ?<br> <dael> fantasai: Seems fine<br> <dael> astearns: Prop: Make this undefined in L3. Define interop behavior in L4 and add tests to L4 test suite<br> <dael> florian: I've written the tests<br> <dael> astearns: Excellent<br> <dael> astearns: Objections to Make this undefined in L3. Define interoperable behavior in L4 and add tests to L4 test suite<br> <dael> RESOLVED: Make this undefined in L3. Define interoperable behavior in L4 and add tests to L4 test suite<br> <dael> florian: Only open issues on writing modes are expected to be resolved editorially. Can we repub CR with other changes and this resolution?<br> <dael> florian: Editorial can happen without patent wait. We have normative edits so pushing those seems useful<br> <dael> astearns: sgtm<br> <dael> Rossen_: List of editorial changes?<br> <dael> florian: It's open issues<br> <AmeliaBR> Changes already integrated in ED: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-writing-modes/#changes-201805<br> <dael> Rossen_: [missed] having test suite complied against the PR which was the organized test suite. Have we changed version for retest?<br> <AmeliaBR> Open issues: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/labels/css-writing-modes-3<br> <dael> florian: Impl report I'm planning to update. Would like to update on basis of CR. We have open issues fantasai thinks will be editorial. Not proven. If are editorial we can roll them in.I'm trying to update impl report from koji but easier against CR<br> <AmeliaBR> Whoops, above link was level 4 changes, here is level 3: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-writing-modes-3/#changes-201805<br> <dael> astearns: And against most recent CR is what will satisfy review<br> <dael> florian: And if we need changes it's easier to change something scoped. A stake in the ground now would be helpful.<br> <dael> Rossen_: It is disappointing to see it's been so long since we were almost REC with so much work. We have another meeting in Japan and I'm sure folks there will be interested in progress. DOesn't sound like we're close to ready.<br> <dael> Rossen_: THis is quite disappointing to see we are where we are. We're trying to get more and more into this spec which means it'll take longer and longer and not focus on L4<br> <dael> florian: That's what I'm trying to do. Get to PR or know why we can't so that we publish what we have resolved on and update koji's report. Not sure we'll be at PR but updating the report is the first step to know if we can.<br> <fantasai> No, they're geared towards me :p<br> <dael> Rossen_: This is fantastic. Comments aren't toward you and I appriciate the effort you put. We as a group are tending to try and put more into L3 rather then get it out the door. Your efforts are appricated<br> <dael> astearns: Proposal is publish updated CR of Writing Modes L3<br> <dael> RESOLVED: publish updated CR of Writing Modes L3<br> <dael> astearns: Any other writing modes progress we can make?<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4139#issuecomment-514701209 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2019 16:19:42 UTC