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

Summary:

   - Discussed Bert's proposal for bolder/lighter
       http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Aug/0255.html
     David Baron expressed some concerns about how this would impact
     mixed script mixed font text
       http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Aug/0263.html
   - 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
     properties:
       http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/09/08/microsoft-css-vendor-extensions.aspx
   - Discussed 'page' property and problem of styling the first page of
     a section differently from the rest of the section.


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

Attendees:
   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

Agenda
------

   Peter: I got your agenda topic, fantasai
   howcome: I want to discuss the 'page' property
   fantasai's request was to discuss
      http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/09/08/microsoft-css-vendor-extensions.aspx
   <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
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Aug/0255.html
   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

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-
   http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/09/08/microsoft-css-vendor-extensions.aspx
   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
            version.
   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
            stable.
   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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:12 GMT