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

[CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2008-09-10

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:16:09 -0700
Message-ID: <48CEB479.9070206@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org


   - Discussed Bert's proposal for bolder/lighter
     David Baron expressed some concerns about how this would impact
     mixed script mixed font text
   - RESOLVED: Will publish Media Queries as LC with 4 weeks for comment,
               aim for CR early after TPAC
   - Discussed Microsoft's new vendor-extension'ed syntax for non-standard
   - Discussed 'page' property and problem of styling the first page of
     a section differently from the rest of the section.

====== Full minutes below ======

   David Baron
   Arron Eicholz
   Elika Etemad (scribe)
   Sylvain Galineau
   Meinda Grant
   Håkon Wium Lie
   Peter Linss (chair)
   Saloni Mira Rai
   Jason Cranford Teague
   Jeff Willson
   Mohamed Zergaoui
   Steve Zilles


   Peter: I got your agenda topic, fantasai
   howcome: I want to discuss the 'page' property
   fantasai's request was to discuss
   <plinss> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Aug/0255.html

Bert's proposal for bolder/lighter
   fantasai: I've read it. Mostly makes sense to me. If dbaron likes it
             then I'm ok with it.
   peterl: I remember when implementing this having to look at the
           available fonts anyway
   dbaron: But not at the computed style level
   dbaron: This is pretty different from all the other proposals.
   dbaron: I'd be interested to hear what John Daggett has to say.
   ACTION dbaron ping jdaggett about
   howcome: I think I'm happy with the outcome if it goes along the lines here
   dbaron: I'll also note that there have been multiple proposals, this is only
           one of them
   Peter: Just wanted to get some feedback here.
   * Bert is in Amsterdam and off to a conference dinner in a few minutes.
   dbaron: There's a case where it would be problematic... in e.g. Chinese and
           Japanese, sometimes the first font is not the main font, it is what
           is used for Latin chars

Media Queries

   Peter: Anne was hoping to publish without having to discuss it too much.
   Peter: Any feedback? Can we publish?
   dbaron: I'm happy with publishing
   howcome: me too
   fantasai: works for me
   Peter: any objections?
   RESOLVED: Publish Media Queries as LC
   Peter: Any groups we need to ask for review?
   fantasai: lots of groups are interested
   dbaron: One group that's not part of the usual suspects is whatever the
           Device Independence WG has been renamed to this year
   Peter: How long?
   fantasai: I don't think we want to have an LC period that is especially short
   fantasai: Somewhere between 4 and 6 weeks should be good
   fantasai: Do we want to aim for CR immediately before TPAC?
   Steve: Better to get feedback at TPAC and publish immediately after
   <dsinger> (sorry, I can't call in, AT&T cellular has run out of circuits.
             I'll keep trying.  sorry to be late also)
   Peter: So 4 weeks, aim for CR early after TPAC?
   Steve: Do we want to jump from LC to PR?
   fantasai: Don't have a completed test suite
   fantasai: And I don't like leaving drafts in LC for like 6 years
   RESOLVED: Media Queries published as LC with 4 weeks for comment, aim for
             CR early after TPAC


   Peter: Wanted to remind everyone to register if you haven't already
   <plinss> http://www.w3.org/2008/10/TPAC/#Registration

Vendor Extensions

   fantasai: Microsoft posted that they're going through the properties they
             implemented without a prefix and adding -ms-
   fantasai: For several properties here there have been implementations by
             other browser vendors, so they are ineffect de-facto standards
   fantasai: It wouldn't be good to require the prefix for those.
   Sylvain: The prefix isn't required, it's optional.
   Sylvain: If you want to be really strict, then you can use the prefixed
   Sylvain: Other issue is do implementations of those properties really match
   Sylvain: Finally, if we're talking about CSS3 properties like writing-mode,
            the issue is that until things are at CR their behavior is not
   Peter: When I read through the article it wasn't clear whether IE8 Standards
          mode would reject non-prefixed versions.
   Sylvain: No, the non-prefixed version is still supported. Otherwise that
            would break the world
   dbaron: I'm not sure encouraging them to use the prefixed version is good
           for overflow-x and overflow-y. Those are widely implemented
   Arron: Wasn't there a discussion about how overflow-x and overflow-y
          conflict with each other?
   dbaron: I thought the spec was pretty clear about that
   fantasai: I think if the prefix is optional then that's fine
   Peter: I think it's great to see MSFT is doing this
   Steve: I would second that
   <SaloniR> :)

'page' Property

   <howcome> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-gcpm/Overview.html
   Peter: we only have 5 minutes
   howcome: 'page' was in CSS2, removed and put back in CSS3 Paged Media
   howcome: Consideration here is to change it from inherited to non-inherited
   howcome: One of the use cases in CSS2 would change its behavior
   howcome: When you have two sibling elements with the same "page: foo",
            then in the old behavior those would appear on the same page if
            there's room
   <dsinger> (it seems at&t wireless has a technical problem, the very day
             the cellular show CTIA opens here in SF. sorry.)
   howcome: There wouldn't be an implicit page break between them
   howcome: In the new proposal any element that has set a named page will
            lead to a page break before it
   howcome: so those would appear on two separate pages
   fantasai: Printer implementations would break. I think that's a problem
             for HP, Epson, etc.
   howcome: This would make possible a lot of things that were not possible
            in the past
   howcome: for example styling the first page of a section separately
   howcome: this is mainly a discussion between myself, Antenna House, and HP
   howcome: we should do this now rather than in a year's time because we
            want implementations to progress
   fantasai: I'm concerned about backwards compatibility.
   fantasai: Maybe if we keep the behavior of the siblings staying on the
             same page
   fantasai: and have :first apply if the new section also is assinged a
             forced page break
   howcome: we should probably discuss this on the mailing list, but I
            wanted to make sure everyone who wanted to participate in the
            discussions is aware
   Peter: I know Melinda was very concerned about this. Ideally we want to
          move forward without breaking backwards-compatibility
   howcome: It's hard to solve all these use cases and constraints, but if
            somebody can do it that would be great
Received on Monday, 15 September 2008 19:16:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:39 UTC