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

[CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2008-09-17

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:17:08 -0700
Message-ID: <48D157B4.5080807@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org

Summary:

   - Reviewed Bert's updates to the charter
       http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2008JulSep/0214.html
   - RESOLVED: No change to section numbering in css3-color
   - Daniel to take concerns about W3C's use of the word "interoperable"
     to HTCG / W3C Chairs group
       http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Sep/0006.html
   - RESOLVED: No negative border-spacing in CSS2.1, but add issue for CSS3
               Tables: http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Tracker/issues/64
   - Briefly discussed problems with new 'background' shorthand
   - RESOLVED: CSSWG members to review SVG Tiny 1.2 and send issues to www-svg,
               cc www-style, and add a link to the archive on an issues list
               on the wiki. (Each person submitting an issue needs to update
               the wiki.)

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

Attendees:
   David Baron
   Bert Bos
   Elika Etemad
   Ming Gao
   Daniel Glazman (chair)
   Melinda Grant
   Anne van Kesteren
   Peter Linss
   Saloni Mira Rai
   Jason Cranford Teague
   Mohamed Zergaoui
   Steve Zilles

<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/17-css-irc
<RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/17-css-minutes.html


Agenda
------

   David: I sent an item for SVGMobile Last Call
   <glazou> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/

Charter Updates
---------------
   Bert: Not a lot of comments;
   * dbaron thought STTS was developed by Daniel well before Disruptive
            Innovations existed...
   Bert updates us on the minor changes summarized in his email.
   Daniel: In fact we are back to the previous state where we didn't mention
           the REC track.
   ... Steve, are you ok with these changes?
   ... You were most concerned about which modules were in scope for legal
       reasons?
   Steve: I'll need to check with Adobe legal.  But I'm not surprised about
          these changes.

   Daniel: Hakon isn't here, but left us with a comment asking to move GCPM
           up from low priority modules.
   ... I'm a bit reluctant to do that without commitment for implementations.
   Peter: I don't have a problem moving it into the 'medium' priority list,
          but we can't move it into the 'high' priority list.
   <glazou> dbaron: correct, EDF
   <glazou> Bert: s/Disruptive Innovations/Electricité de France although
                  I'd really prefer that mention to be dropped...
   Alex: Do we have two implementations of 'variables'?
   fantasai: We have one implementation and another 'high interest'?
   Alex: It would probably help to have an implementation count next to modules.
   Peter: We collected that info, we can publish it I guess.
   <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008May/0033.html
   Daniel: Anyone have problems with the charter now?
   (Some discussion about changing the liaisson section.
   Daniel: I suggest we wait for Adobe's reply regarding the charter.

CSS3 Color
----------

   <dbaron> Issues list for css3-color LC is at
            http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css3-color
   David: I just have one implementation report so far.
   ... I should probably write one myself for Webkit.
   ... So I can't really say yet if we're ready to move to PR.
   ... It's possible we may need to look to Opera as well, because Webkit
       may be missing a couple features
   ... I've proposed resolutions to some of the issues remaining, so we
      could discuss them I think.
   <anne> (I don't think Opera does 'opacity' entirely correct yet. rgba()
           and such have been implemented as part of Acid3 work though are
           not in release builds.)

   Steve: Is CMYK in or out?
   David: Out.
   fantasai: I checked with HP, and there's really no defined standard
             for CMYK.
   Steve: I checked with ICC about standardizing CMYK, and they indicated
          there are three (US, Europe, Japan).
   ... None are suitable, but there is apparently some interest in coming
       up with a default that's interoperable.

   Daniel: David, I see 19 issues on your page.
   David: Issue 2
   ... There's a request to restructure the TOC.
   ... There's an advantage to keeping the current numbering because people
       have been using it for years.
   ... On the other hand the spec could benefit from some reorg.
   Daniel: So the proposal is to move gamma correction...
   <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Mar/0405.html
   David: That's a minor part; the bulk of the proposal's in the first URL's
          in the issue.
   Anne: I think it's best to keep as is; we can reorg in level 4 as necessary.
   fantasai: How about we remove Dependencies Section 2 and put gamma
             correction there instead?
   David: There's another proposal to remove the gamma section, so don't get
          too into the details of where it goes yet.
   David: My tendency is to keep it pretty much as is.
   Daniel: Yes, let's keep it as is and move things around for CSS4.
   RESOLVED: No change to section ordering.

   David: Another thing I want to discuss (not really in css3-color, but
          affects the whole group)
   <dbaron> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Sep/0006.html
   ...People don't really like our use of the word 'interoperable'.
   Melinda: I agree, and I raised this awhile back
   ... but it's broadly and consistently misused within the W3.
   Daniel: Yes, this goes far beyond the CSS WG.
   ... Let's leave the wording as is and I will take it to the mailing list
       for W3C chairs or the HTCG.
   <Bert> ("Interoperable" is the word used in the W3C process document...)
   ACTION Daniel take
             http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Sep/0006.html
          to HTCG/chairs

   David: Many of the other issues are trivial in that they are totally
          editorial or they're proposing new features that we're obviously
          not going to add now.
   ... There are a few others that I would like to propose solutions for
       before we discuss.
   Daniel: Conference call or upcoming f2f?
   David: I think it depends on how quickly I can get to them.
   <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2008JulSep/0207.html

Negative border spacing
-----------------------
   <dbaron> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Sep/0060.html
   <dbaron> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Sep/0161.html
   fantasai: Now negative lengths are not allowed, but it's been discussed
             on www-style to get some interesting effects without actually
             collapsing...
   ... When do we want to tackle this, as a 2.1 or a 3 issue?
   fantasai discusses some issues...
   David: This is not something I want to be rushing to implement, so I
          don't think it's for 2.1.
   fantasai: We could say in 2.1 that negative widths are clampled to 0,
             that way they get parsed.
   David: Which would be yet another change to what UA's do now.
   Bert: It's better to keep disallowing neg lengths in 2.1, and target
         this for Level 3.
   Melinda: My preference would be not to change 2.1 unless we need to.
   <SaloniR> no objection
   Daniel, David: We should keep it on the radar for CSS3.
   <fantasai> http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Tracker/issues/64
   RESOLVED: Not for 2.1, keep for 3.

New background shorthand
------------------------

   <glazou> http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Tracker/issues/63
   <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Sep/0142.html

   <anne> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Sep/0145.html
   fantasai: I remember having an issue to remove the parens for background
             shorthand.
   Anne: The previous draft does use the parentheses.  Why did we decide to
         change this?
   fantasai: Because we don't yet use them in any other property values,
             and it didn't seem necessary here. We wanted to save them for
             other disambiguation in the future where grouping is important.
   fantasai: I think Bert and I should take a closer look at this before
             discussing here.
   David: this is not urgent for me yet because we're not implementing
          background size yet.  You could possibly use functional notation.
   fantasai: but the value itself doesn't take a function.
   David: It doesn't take a slash either.
   fantasai: We do use a slash in the font shorthand for disambiguation.
   David: But there it's used after a mandatory part.
   fantasai: I understand there's a problem here, but I don't think
             functional notation is the answer.
   ACTION: Bert to propose new syntax.

   <fantasai> anne, see this message wrt background shorthand -
              http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006May/0121.html

SVG Mobile
----------

   <dbaron> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/
   <shepazu> I'm here if anyone has questions
   David: They issued a Last Call with a 4 week review period.
   David: I encourage everyone to look at this.  They are using different
          definitions for our font and text properties.
   <dbaron> I'd note Chapter 10 has font-* properties (CSS2.0 definitions,
            via XSL) and a bunch of text properties (mostly different from
            ours)
   Daniel: We need an extensive review of our properties versus theirs...
   Doug: Are there major differences in this draft?
   David: The flowing text stuff is new.
   Doug: I just want to be sure we don't open old wounds for stuff that's
         been in there for several years.
   <fantasai> ACTION fantasai review text properties in svg draft
   Doug: One of the issues with the 1.x series of Tiny is that we're
         playing catch-up with implementations, and we really need to get
         this wrapped up.
   ... We're not as constrained wrt the 2.0 family.
   ACTION bert review svg draft

   Melinda: Do we want to coordinate a group review or just send out
            individual comments?
   David: I suggest individual review because of the size.
   Daniel: I agree.
   ... If we see an issue we think is quite large, we can comment on it
       as a group.  But for smaller things, I think individual comments
       will be more efficient.
   fantasai: I see some significant issues...
   Daniel: What about a wiki page?
   ... we can collect comments there and send the whole page...
   fantasai: I'm of the opinion we should send individual comments and deal
             with problems that arise from that as a group.
   <glazou> "Please send comments to www-svg@w3.org"
   RESOLVED: We will send issues to www-svg, and cc www-style, and add a
             link to the archive on an issues list on the wiki.
             Each person submitting an issue needs to update the wiki.
   Peter: You can add a note on the wiki about group discussion as necessary.

Other
-----

   Daniel: Other agenda items?
   Steve: I will miss the next three meetings due to travel.
   Peter: Is everyone registered for TPAC?
   * dbaron registered for the TPAC many many months ago
   * glazou too

   Steve: Jason, do you have an overview of your website redesign plan?
   Jason: No, my manager's been pulling back on how much time I can spend on
          this stuff
   Jason: Direction we outlined in San Diego is on hold until IJ's site-wide
          redesign goes forward
   Jason: We need to figure out how we fit into that
   Fantasai: I think the information design is going to stay mostly the same,
             but the visuals might change a lot from what we discussed in SD

   <MoZ> fantasai, what is the link to the wiki page ?
   <fantasai> haven't created it yet

Meeting closed.
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2008 19:17:52 GMT

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