W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2009

[CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2009-08-18

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:41:49 -0700
Message-ID: <4A8C476D.4010502@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
Summary:

   - César added as co-editor of Template module
   - Discussed CSS2.1 issues 115 and 128, need proposed wordings.
   - Discussed box-shadow+border-image interaction again. No
     conclusion again. See also previous discussions:
       http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Jul/0102.html
       http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Jul/0120.html
       http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Jul/0176.html

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

Present:

   César Acebal
   David Baron
   Bert Bos
   Arron Eicholz
   Elika Etemad
   Sylvain Galineau
   Brad Kemper
   Dave Hyatt
   Hĺkon Wium Lie
   Chris Lilley


<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/08/19-CSS-irc
ScribeNick: fantasai

Administrivia
-------------

   Bert: I'd like to add Cesar as co-editor of Template module
   RESOLVED: Cesar accepted as co-editor of Template module

CSS2.1 Issues
-------------

   Peter: Issue 128
   <plinss> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Jul/0025.html
   Bert: I've looked at this when working on the Box module, and did
         write that section more carefully there
   <Bert> http://www.w3.org/Style/Group/css3-src/css3-box/Overview.html#run-in-boxes
   Bert: We're talking about block level with exceptions, e.g. block-level
         but not floating
   Bert: For issue 2, I think 'follows' is defined, but is not defined in the
         way we need... in Chapter 3 elements and following elements are defined
   Bert: But here we need "immediately following". So that's a bug in the
         definition
   <ChrisL> +1 to 'immediately following'
   ACTION: Bert Come up with exact wording for CSS2.1 Issue 128

   ChrisL: The last part is, I think, talking about tree order rather than
           rendering order (in any case this needs clarification)
   ChrisL: "first child" would be more precise than "starts with"
   Peter: You said you have clarifications that address the first issue,
          but he's pointing out different behavior in different browsers.
   fantasai thinks Bert should come up with a proposal and then we can
            talk about it
   Hyatt: I would prefer Boris's suggestion
   ChrisL: That means IE has to change

   Peter: Issue 115
   <plinss> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Mar/0282.html
   dbaron: I think fantasai's text has a serious bug in it in that it says
           every element with 'clear' inhibits margin collapsing even if
           it's not next to floats
   dbaron: I sent a message to the list a week ago, but it wasn't clear so
           I sent another one just now
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Aug/0386.html
   dbaron: I'm not sure there's an issue here
   fantasai: There is, there are cases where you need clearance to be zero
             and still be clearance.
   fantasai: Anton pointed out that the spec in some places assumes zero
             clearance is considered no clearance
   ACTION: dbaron figure out what he wants to do about Issue 115

Border-image/box-shadow
-----------------------

   ChrisL: Last time we discussed I present a proposal
   ChrisL: It was rejected on two grounds, desire for a real box shaddow and
           the assertion that shadows could be precomputed, and there was
           discussion of a border-shadow proposal
   ChrisL: But I don't understand what happened sicne then
   fantasai points Chris to the minutes
   <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Jul/0176.html
   People discuss issues
   fantasai fails to minute them.
   Brad: If we're going to have an alpha-based shadow in the future, that
         should be a separate thing from box-shadow which doesn't follow
         the shape of the dashes
   ChrisL: I understand that point, but I think people are going to be surprised
           when box-shadow doesn't follow the shape of the border image
   ChrisL: You could specify it that way, but it's not very satisfactory
   Hyatt: I would prefer if we came up with a resolution that used border-image
   Hyatt: People use it in a way that visually alters the shape of the box
   ChrisL: And if you curve the corners, it follows the curve
   ChrisL: People will expect it to work for border-image, too

   Hyatt: I think either we should follow the border-image, or suppress
          the shadow
   Hyatt: Making a box shape doesn't make sense
   Brad: Why don't we shadow everything?
   Hyatt: We have that, it's a separate feature
   Hyatt: ... SVG shadows
   ChrisL: That's how I implemented these
   Brad: Once we have SVG shadows, then anything we do for border-image
         just becomes redundant
   Hyatt: For box-shadow, my concern is what the author expects.
   Hyatt: I think there's really only two options: either shadow the
          border-image or suppress it
   Hyatt: I don't see what the problem is with doing shadows on border-image
   Hyatt: Is it just that we can't come to agreement on how it works?
   fantasai: no, that's not the problem
   Brad: We could add switches to controll what the shadow gets applied to
   fantasai: we can add switches later
   Hyatt: If you really want a separate border-shadow then we can add that
          and copy the box-shadow syntax
   ...
   Hyatt: If we have a box-shadow, then it tries to do this filled shadow
          effect where it's drawn outside the box
   Hyatt: A border-shadow effect would shadow whatever's drawn for the border
   Peter: Does border-shadow really change the shape of the box?
   Hyatt: People expect it to
   Hyatt: It looks like they change the shape of the box, but it's kinda fake
   Bert: I don't want to have a non-continuous border change the shape of the
         box. I still want the box to be rectangular.
   Hyatt: Most of our use of border-image is to round things
   Brad: I think using border-image for interesting dotted patterns will be
         as interesting as using it for changing the shape of the box
   Hyatt: It's going to be used for a lot of things. Any case where the
          built-in borders aren't good enough
   ChrisL: So you're saying people want this immediately ... ?
   Hyatt: Feature requests we've gotten:
   Hyatt:  1. do border-shadow, which is just a property like box-shadow
              and text-shadow that would exactly shadow the border drawing
   Hyatt: 2. A full-blown shadow property, that would shadow everything
             drawn inside the element
   Hyatt: 3. Wanting to shadow pieces of SVG.
   ChrisL: You can do that already with the filter property
   ChrisL: The latest draft is adding some syntactic sugar for common effects
   ChrisL: I believe that's already implemented in WebKit, actually
   ChrisL: If we go ahead and do a border-shadow property, then I'd like
           the box-shadow property to be only affected by the box, not
           by the border-image
   ChrisL: You'll only get a rectangular shadow
   ChrisL: It's not what people want. It's just clear and simple.
   Hyatt: The argument for suppressing the box-shadow instead of just
          drawing a rectangle
   Hyatt: Is that if the image don't load you show the border with a shadow
   Hyatt: I'm fine with just rendering the rectangular shadow
   Hyatt: I think that's what we currently do
   Hyatt: I think it's an important point that border-image doesn't change
          the shape of the box
   * bradk lost the phone connection and can't reconnect
   <bradk> is the call over?
   <Bert> No, not quite
   <Bert> (But you're right that it's the top of the hour...)
   Peter: we're over our time, still no conclusion
   Peter: let's pick this up again next week
Received on Wednesday, 19 August 2009 18:42:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:20 GMT