W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2008

CSS WG weekly meeting minutes 2008-04-16

From: Gao, Ming (ICS, San Diego) <ming.gao@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:50:29 +0000
To: "www-style@w3c.org" <www-style@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <93703EDD1F125544A59BD25384B175621F49AFD65E@G1W0485.americas.hpqcorp.net>

Meeting: Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Working Group Weekly Teleconference

Date: April 16, 2008
Time: 08:55am to 10:06am PDT

Attendees:
Cesar Acebal
David Baron
Bert Bos
Elika Etemad
Ming Gao
Daniel Glazman
Molly Holzschlag
Anne van Kesteren
Peter Linss
Jason Cranford Teague


Official regrets:
Steve Zilles
Alex Mogilevsky
Arron Eicholz
Dean Jackson


Scriber: Ming Gao


Topic: how to use tracking tool
-------------------------------
(ming: please refer to Peter's summary of the process, at the end of this minutes)

molly: just got a hold of the internal documents
peter: we (chairs) are not able to get a hold of status on what's going on; so would  like to use the tools to get accurate info
peter: issues are to be entered and put to RAISED status
peter: so folks can periodically review and know what's going on
peter: if issues stay in RAISED status, need to be reviewed at next teleconf
peter: flag the issue as PENDING review, so it will be put the agenda for the next  teleconf
fantasai: is this the only way to put it on the agenda?
peter: no, you can explicitly request it to be on the agenda
daniel: tracker is to help us, as a useful tool
fantasai: don't want to create action items to review each and every issue
peter: action item is not intended for that
fantasai: don't want teleconf to review all of that
daniel: one reason for that is the following: if an issue is not reviewed, the  corresponding spec shouldn't go to CR
daniel: working draft is not perfect.
fantasai: for every teleconf to get a status read for something just raised say,  yesterday, does not make sense.
peter: agree.
peter: does not intend to do so.
peter: only if a issue stay inactive for too long, then it need to be reviewed
peter: if an action item is just about logistics, e.g., editorial review, then WG need  to review it and make sure that is done
<fantasai> Fantasai says that she doesn't want to create an action item for each issue  just to reminder herself to triage the issue
<fantasai> Peter says that he doesn't expect that, but he wants to go over all RAISED  issues at the telecon
<fantasai> Fantasai says that would put all newly-raised issues on the telecon agenda,  which is a total waste of time
<fantasai> Peter says we can review them 2 weeks after they are entered
bert: what action item is to be created when there is an issue?
peter: when an issue is to be worked on, then an action item is to be entered
bert: should be an action when an issue is raised, not other way around.
peter: when an issue is open, it means work to be done, so action item to be in the  system
bert: action item to be implicit.
peter: no
daniel: no
daniel: an issue could come from public, outside WG
peter: the intent is to review an issue and decide someone to do something about it
bert: what does this "do something" mean?
fantasai: I have to create action item and triage in 2 weeks?
peter: is two weeks reasonable?
fantasai: it depends.
fantasai: e.g., if I have an issue that I am not working on for two months, not a high  priority
fantasai: if I enter it into the system, then the action item is to be reviewed on the  teleconf
fantasai: this, to me, is waste of time
fantasai: want to put such issues aside
<anne> Maybe discuss this on the list?
fantasai: want to prioritize them first and then identify those to put forward to  teleconf for review
daniel: there is no way to track issues from editor
<Bert> (An action means there is something for a person to do. An issue means there is  something for the WG to do.)
fantasai: don't want to put them into tracker, because doing that, I have to have them  reviewed in two weeks
molly: is there a way to group such items?
peter: this (grouping) is the way I want to do
fantasai: that's ok. but once in Open state, I have to figure out what to do
peter: action item could be empty.
fantasai: don't want to create action items and review them in telecon
fantasai: ok to create action items for myself
peter: the problem I want to resolve is that there are problems being triaged but years  go by and those problems are still not resolved.
<fantasai> but not to enter everything twice, once in issues list and once in actions  list
peter: it is hard or impossible (for chairs or any members) to tell the status of 100  or more issues
david: if there are 100 issues (assigned to say, Elika); and years later, if elika  decide not to work on 50 of them anymore, then suddenly we have these 50 issues  outstanding (with no owner).
peter: chair(s) is to handle that.

silence ....

peter: any additional feedbacks?
bert: want to see what's going to happen if we go with this process and then decide (if  we need to continue with it)
fantasai: will put off creating action items since having other higher priority work to  do
peter: review your issues and mark them as open, without creating action items
peter: if needed, peter will create them
fantasai: ok unless they are cluttering what I plan to work on
peter: this way, at least, the info is being tracked somehow or somewhere.
fantasai: what's being tracked? dates?
peter: (what being tracked are) the work need to be done, and dates and precendance of  the work.
peter: if work stalled, say for three years, we can find someone else to work on them.
fantasai: I would rather have one blank action item for a module; the action says to go  through all the issues in the module
fantasai: so no (same) action item need to be created every time (when an issue is  created). seem to serve the same purpose.
peter: but no way to link action item to issue
fantasai: can't link action item to issue, unless name the issue first
bert: if I can't close an issue, then that's a problem.
bert: issue is closed by working group, while action item is closed by me (i.e. editor)
peter: if issue to be reviewed by working group, mark action item pending
peter: can't leave issue open w/o action
<anne> Can we please move on? 30 minutes on process is just too much... And I get the  feeling this is better discussed over e-mail :)
<glazou> anne, 30 minutes on process in 7 years is too much?
<anne> It's too much for a telcon
bert: why do we want an action item that have nothing to do?
peter: should have action in it (the action item)
bert: but we don't know what to do yet (at that particular moment)
<anne> Especially since only three people are involved in the discussion
<anne> It's effectively wasting the time of the other participants which doesn't seem  good
peter: if action is to raise discussion, then assign it to me (chair)
bert: action to be done, issue to be discussed. one for owner, one for WG. don't know  why to link both?
peter: want issues to have their related action items, so know they are being done.
<fantasai> anne, well, Namespaces is pretty much ready for last call :)
<fantasai> er
<fantasai> CR :)
<anne> yeah, saw that

peter: move on

peter: for actions marked pending review
peter: they should be marked as closed, since was done that way by "mistake"



Topic: WG charter
-----------------

peter: got feedbacks from David (Baron) and Daniel (Glazman)
daniel: browser vendors' feedbacks will be sent out tomorrow
peter: any objection on validation tool clause?
peter: david has a comment on effective due date
david: editors are widely distributed; so that shouldn't mean the expected  participation should be doubled.
david: it is ok for me now.
peter: fantasai comments on internationalization and dependency
fantasai: we do have interaction with internationalization group and have some  dependency.
peter: WAI?
fantasai: no clue
peter: do we have liaisonship with them?
bert: no
peter: if we have not strong dependency, suggest to remove this.
david: Need to follow recommendation on architecture from W3C
peter: any further suggestion?
peter: there will be an action item for me to go over the document and review further
peter: any other feedbacks?

no further feedbacks from the group.



Topic: open issues on CSS 2.1
-------------------------------

issue #6
--------

peter: empty blocks for margin collapsing
peter: the proposal is from Microsoft
<fantasai> http://csswg.inkedblade.net/spec/css2.1#issue-37
fantasai: they (Microsoft members) are not here; though it is on their to-do list, at  this moment, there is no further progress or status.
peter: any dissention on this?
<fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Mar/0074.html
peter: close issue #37 and accept the proposal


Medai Query proposal
-------------------------------

<anne> (Both my phones died. I recommend that a resolution regarding media queries is
recorded during the remainder of the telcon. Either that the WG is ok with the
draft they were supposed to review for today or not, if people have objections.)

peter: anne's request on media query; any comment?
daniel: no specific comment, think it is ready for release
peter: any objection?
david: what level of publication is this?
fantasai: LC
david: LC is fine, likely to have some comments, will catch up some time later.
peter: media query can proceed to LC
daniel: don't think it can be published right now: W3C AC team is in beijing so  logistically, it can't go to LC.
peter: ok, will go to LC as soon as we can.

<glazou> there's a moratorium because of web conf+ac meeting
<anne> glazou, it not being published is ok, having a resolution that the draft is ok
would be great, but I suppose we can postpone it
<glazou> anne: so the draft will be published as LC, but after moratorium, that's all
<glazou> anne: happy ?-)
<anne> glazou, ok, great, I'll fix my tests to match the draft and add some more
<glazou> bert, is it ok to ask for a transition to LC during the moratorium for the doc
to be published after, or should we wait ?
<glazou> anne, FYI moratorium ends 28-apr



issue #24
------------------------

peter: CSS 2.1 issue #24
fantasai: nothing to discuss, no proposal.
fantasai: a couple of open issues related to this, are on Tracker.
<fantasai> http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Tracker/issues/35
<fantasai> http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Tracker/issues/33
fantasai: related to page break, etc
fantasai: suggest to adopt the proposal
david: support the resolution; thought this has been raised at least once before.
peter: no objections?
fantasai: should find a better way (need more interaction here)
fantasai: we can assign bert an action.

Created ACTION-56 - Edit ISSUE-33 [on Bert Bos - due 2008-04-23].

anne: the draft is ok, we had no objection
peter: any other issue?


issue #35
---------------------

<fantasai> http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Tracker/issues/35
fantasai: page break issue from f2f meeting
<fantasai> but ISSUE-33 doesn't list the action item
<fantasai> which makes Peter unhappy
peter: Bert believe auto keyword will decrease the strengthen of page break avoid
fantasai: it doesn't
bert: agree but my conclusion is no change.
bert: current solution is more powerful so keep what we have, no change.
fantasai: having an avoid and less avoid can do the same thing, but some implementation  does, and some does not implement the spec
fantasai: those implemented, are willing to make the change and match the others.
peter: Bert is to leave spec as is, leave inheritance, and add keywords in CSS 3 and  give you the modification
bert: do explicitly
bert: inherit explicit strength
Fantasai; inherit the computed value
peter: will this work?
fantasai: but won't meet Alex's need
peter: defer this until Alex is back
bert: good idea, and want to understand his intent.


Misc:

<dbaron> My regrets for next week; I'll be in Beijing.

Meeting adjourned at 10:06am PDT.

=========================================================================
Peter Linss' summary of tracking tool process, sent prior to the meeting:

0) All existing open issues should be entered into tracker ASAP and their status set to  "OPEN". If the issue is already being addressed, create an action item assigned to the  appropriate person(s).

1) As new issues are raised, they get entered and set to "RAISED" status.

2) Module editors should periodically review raised issues (let's say by each Tuesday).  If the issue is obviously valid AND the editor will address it, accept the issue by  setting status to "OPEN" and create an action item assigned to themselves associated to  the issue to address it. Otherwise, leave it "RAISED".

3) At each telcon, the WG will spend a few minutes during the all-hands administrative  period (that everyone agreed to attend) reviewing issues that are still in "RAISED"  status. The group will decide to accept the issue, setting it to "OPEN" and creating an  action item, or the group will reject the issue and set its status to "CLOSED".

3a) The WG will also review any existing "OPEN" issues that do not have action items.  We will either create an action item or close the issue.

3b) At the end of each telcon, there should be no issues left in "RAISED" status or  "OPEN" without an action item (unless necessary members are not present and the issue  is deferred to the next meeting).

3c) All open action items should have a reasonable due date (it can be weeks, months or  years in the future). This is to facilitate prioritization of work and to ensure that  undone items are periodically reviewed as appropriate.

4) When an action item is complete, the owner should set its status to "CLOSED" if it  does not require any further group input (like a simple editorial change). If the issue  needs to be discussed by the WG, the associated action item's status should be set to  "PENDING REVIEW". ***This will be the indication to add it to the agenda for the next  available telcon.***

5) The group will review all action items that are "PENDING REVIEW" and either close  the issue and action item, or reset the action item to "OPEN" as needed.

6) The group will review all overdue action items and decide to reset the due date or  reassign the item.
=========================================================================
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 22:52:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:05 GMT