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

[CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2009-05-13

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 18:23:05 -0700
Message-ID: <4A0B7279.6060406@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
Summary:

   - Discussed CSS2.1 Issue 117 (vertical alignment)
       http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-117
   - Briefly reviewed proposal for background shorthand syntax
       http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009May/0084.html
   - Discussed issues raised by Andrey Mikhalev
       http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009May/0054.html
   - Bert will address grammar issue (CSS2.1 Issue 124), see proposal.
       http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-124
   - RESOLVED: Accept Bert's first proposal to fix CSS2.1 Issue 123
               with additional comma before second "or".
       http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-123

====== Full minutes =======

Attendees:
   CÚsar Acebal
   Bert Bos
   David Baron
   Arron Eicholz
   Elika Etemad
   Daniel Glazman
   Peter Linss
   Alex Mogilevsky
   Steve Zilles

<dbaron> anyway, I got something online at http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-flexbox/
<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/05/13-CSS-irc


ScribeNick: Bert

2.1 issues
----------

   <glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-117
   <dbaron> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009May/0067.html
   David baron sent some replies.
   David: We might want to define issue 4, indeed. We would need test cases.
   <sylvaing> issue 4a
   <sylvaing> ?
   David: Specifically 4a.
   David: I already pointed out it was undefiend 10 years ago and the group
          decided to leave it 5 years ago. But we might change our mind.
   Bert: Defined at some point, yes, but needed for 2.1?
   David: Maybe not necessary, but we won't get interoperability.
   Daniel: So we confirm that we leave it undefined?
   (Discussion about what 2004 decision meant...)
   David explains the "root" in that decision.
   David: We don't have good terminology.
   David: An element inside a top-aligned is not a root and is not considered
          for the alignment of that root.
ScribeNick: fantasai
   Steve: For XSL I said top was considered first and then the bottom-aligned
          elements would align to what was the resulting bottom after the
          rest was aligned.
   Steve: XSL, you align all the things that are neither top nor bottom-aligned
   Steve: Then you align things that are top, then bottom
   <szilles> You align all the things that are neither top or bottom aligned;
             then next align the top items to the top of the first result and
             finally align the bottom aligned items to the bottom of the first
             two results
   fantasai: Should we just copy XSL's definition?
   David: We could use some test cases to see what browsers do
   fantasai: Didn't Anton post a test case?
   David: Yes, but it's not comprehensive enough.
   David: Some browsers might use always top, or always bottom, or the first
          thing, or the last thing.
   ACTION Steve come up with wider set of testcases
   Daniel: So we will return to 4a after analyzing testcases
   Daniel: What abotu 4b?
   David: We should come up with proposals for these
   Daniel: That's ok, but who will come up with the proposals?
   Steve: That should be either David or I
   David: Didn't fantasai have a proposal?
          http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009May/0035.html
   fantasai: I didn't have any proposals for this one, just filed the issue
   fantasai: I folded Issue 4 and Issue 10 from that message into 117, they
             are all related and multiple bits might be solved by one proposal
   Daniel: Ok, Steve will take care of this. Next issue

Background Shorthand for size
-----------------------------

   <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009May/0084.html
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009May/0084.html
   David: I don't like using slash as a delimiter when the item before it
          is optional
   Daniel: Thoughts on this?
   fantasai: Even the poster decided he didn't like this proposal, so I don't
             think we should adopt it.

CSS2.1 Pity Thread
------------------

   <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009May/0030.html
   Daniel: Was there anything to extract from this email?
   Bert: The first issue about the grammar, I made an error, it's my fault.
   Bert: The others, he doesn't like the way we write it... and I don't like
         it either, the handling of errors is not very clear
   Bert: I'm not sure we want to change that
   Bert: The last one, the fonts one, we still have an open issue. We should
         wait for that before we decide anything new on fonts
   Bert: I think John was going to come up with a proposal for that.
   Daniel: So we have one error that you are going to fix, or have already fixed
   Daniel: Two clarifications requested for the prose?
   Bert: Number 2 in his mail is about ignoring until the end of the block.
         The way it's written now says "up to and including the end of the
         block", which is wrong
   (we don't want to ignore the } )
   Bert: For number 3, I don't think we change anything there. I don't like
         the way it's written either, but I don't want to try to rewrite it.
         It's maybe not nicely written, but no real need to change.
   <dbaron> "up to (but not including) the end of the block"
   <fantasai> dbaron, that's not sufficient
   <fantasai> dbaron, reread the paragraph, you need to rearrange some text
              for that to work
   <dbaron> I can't find the paragraph
   <fantasai> it's in Bert's mail
   <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009May/0054.html
   <fantasai> Search for "Maybe change from"
   David: I think I prefer Bert's first proposal
   fantasai: I would be ok with the first proposal if s/up to and including
             the next block/block/
   fantasai: but I guess that makes it ambiguous
   <dbaron> it might be clearer if we say that it's the next semicolon not
            in a block
   several prefer Bert's original proposal
   fantasai: I can live with that if we add a comma before the second 'or'
   * sylvaing thinks any of the proposals should be fine given the proper set
              of examples to disambiguate possible minsinterpretations
   RESOLVED: Bert's first proposal accepted with comma before second or

   Daniel: Other issues?
   <dbaron> mine are not ready
   <sylvaing> not ready either
   Nobody's ready with CSS2.1 issues
   Next issue

   Topic: Request for new pseudos to Selectors spec
   <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009May/0065.html
   Daniel: I think it's too late in process to add these to css3-selectors
   agreemeent
   RESOLVED: Deferred to future specs

June F2F
--------

   Daniel: Please make sure to book your hotels and flights
   Daniel: And add topics to agenda http://wiki.csswg.org/planning/sophia-2009

Meeting closed

<RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/05/13-CSS-minutes.html
Received on Thursday, 14 May 2009 01:23:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:18 GMT