W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2011

[CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 15:41:20 -0500
Message-ID: <4D2628F0.2050207@inkedblade.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Summary:

   - Discussed comments on WOFF. No CSS-related issues were found, but
     Steve Zilles and Bert Bos have other comments that they will send
     individually.

   - Reviewed status of CSS2.1 test results. Peter Linss put up lists
     of REC-blocking tests for wiki analysis.
       http://wiki.csswg.org/test/css2.1/blocking
       http://wiki.csswg.org/test/css2.1/invalid (as reported in UA reports;
       http://wiki.csswg.org/test/css2.1/issues tracks public-css-testsuite)
     Discussion of analysis scheduled for next telecon.

   - fantasai updated the CSS module template and posted it to dev.w3.org.
     All CSS modules will need to be updated with relevant parts of the
     boilerplate text, so editors should review the template this week.
       http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-module/

Actions:

   - spec editors to review updated module template
   - Peter Linss to ask jdaggett if he has any CSS-related comments on WOFF;
     if not, send note that CSSWG has no comments wrt CSS, but that
     individual members will send comments on other issues they noticed.
   - fantasai to set up nightly builds of the CSS2.1 test suite
   - Arron to create wiki analysis template, analyse Microsoft blocking tests
   - dbaron to analyze abspos and float-wrap tests
   - fantasai to analyse remaining tests

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

Present:
   David Baron
   Cathy Chan (Nokia)
   Arron Eicholz
   Elika Etemad
   Simon Fraser
   Sylvain Galineau
   Daniel Glazman (partial)
   Koji Ishii
   John Jansen
   Brad Kemper
   Håkon Wium Lie
   Peter Linss
   David Singer
   Steve Zilles

<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/01/05-CSS-irc
Scribe: fantasai


plinss: Anything to add to the agenda?

Comments on WOFF
----------------

   SteveZilles says something quietly
   <szilles> i sent comments on WOFF http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jan/0020.html
   sylvaing: Bert sent feedback about WOFF to the WG list, but it never
             made it to www-style
   plinss notes we are already late on comments for WOFF
   SteveZ: Most of my comments were editorial. The other seemed to be a
           conflict in their spec, possibly nontrivial to fix.
   SteveZ: They have a note about not following the XML ID syntax when
           putting an ID in the font, since elsewhere they say it must
           be well-formed XML in the metadata
   <dsinger> seems like it's either an XML ID or it needs a different name
   plinss: How do we want to proceed on this?
   SteveZ: Do we have a URL for Bert's comments?
   sylvaing: Should ask Bert if he could either make his comments public,
             or if we can forward it.
   sylvaing: He's on both working groups [...]
   plinss: Are these official comments from the WG? Do we need discussion
           on these?
   plinss: We have a history of unofficial comments...
   dbaron: A bunch of these comments seem like comments on WOFF, not on
           how it relates to the work of the CSSWG.
   dbaron: It seems like official comments from the group ought to be
           things in the latter category.
   sylvaing: That's true.
   SteveZ: The only thing I'd say is that some of the comments are from
           experience developing specs that they might not have.
   SteveZ: Unfortunately ChrisL isn't here, to explain why some of those
           were done
   Sylvaing: Well, the ID thing was because there are a number of existing
             WOFF fonts out there that were using malformed XML
   fantasai says something about noting that UAs must be able to process
            those but they should still be nonconforming.
   SteveZ: Maybe they should change the note to warn that although the ID
           must be well-formed XML, but that some currently-existing
           existing fonts do not adhere to this syntax.
   SteveZ: I would prefer to have my comments sent as formal comments by
           the WG, but I'm happy to send over unofficially.
   Sylvaing: This is good feedback. It has to be clear what to do
   plinss not hearing any objections
   plinss: We also have Bert's comments. Do we want to send those as formal
           comments?
   plinss: There was still some discussion on some of Bert's comments.
   fantasai: There are good comments, but I don't see a reason to send
             them as WG comments.
   fantasai: As dbaron says, they're not CSS comments, just good comments.
   fantasai: LC requires addressing all comments, not just WG comments,
             so I don't see a reason to send them on behalf of the WG.
   howcome agrees
   dsinger: Do we need to send a message from the WG that we have no comments?
   howcome: We can do better than that. Say there were no CSS-specific
            comments, but there were other comments that will be submitted
            individually.
   sylvaing expresses concern that jdaggett hasn't sent any direct feedback.
   plinss: I don't think we can delay a week. I will send him an email
           asking if he has any feedback, and if not, send the WG message.
   plinss: Anything else on this topic?

CSS2.1
------

   plinss: We still have a bunch of blocking tests and a bunch of invalid tests.
   arronei: With the 32-bit issue we talked about last time, I think I've
            addressed them all.
   arronei: I will send email about it. Would be great if people could
            review them.
   arronei: All I need is a review from anybody to look at them.
   dbaron: I can have a look when he sends out the URL.
   arronei: Ok, will do that in the next half-hour
   arronei: I've flagged the tests as 32bit and as may so you know they're
            optional

   plinss: My biggest concern at this point are the tests that have blocking
           failures
   plinss: We need to either modify the test or modify the spec
   <plinss> http://wiki.csswg.org/test/css2.1/blocking
   plinss: Do we want to discuss these one by one on a telecon? If not how
           do we move forward?
   fantasai: active-selector-002 was updated for RC5
   * glazou has to leave the call, sorry
   fantasai: I thought background-intrinsic was fixed. If it's still not
             passing, it's likely a test bug...
   <oyvind> I think neither webkit nor opera follow the spec on
            background-intrinsic
   <oyvind> and the others don't support svg backgrounds
   arronei: I think discussing them on the conference call is difficult,
            especially some of the margin and page breaking ones
   arronei: It's unfortunate we don't have an F2F soon
   arronei: ....

   smfr: How about each test author creates a wiki page for that specific test
   smfr: Right now we have no way to collaboratively dump information on
         why we think that test is failing
   arronei: I'm handling mine. In most cases the case just need to be updated.
   <oyvind> http://wiki.csswg.org/test/css2.1/issues or
            http://wiki.csswg.org/test/css2.1/invalid (which seems to
            duplicate the former)?
   smfr: You might know, but the vendors don't
   fantasai: It doesn't make sense to me to do that for the invalid tests,
             but for the blocking tests, that might be a good idea.
   plinss: Arron, were you talking about the blocking tests or the invalid tests?
   arronei: both.. I have some updates for the blocking tests
   dbaron: The previous wiki page that listed blocking tests had notes on
           some of those
   <oyvind> http://wiki.csswg.org/test/css2.1/results
   plinss: I don't want to lose the notes, but I didn't want to move them
           over since they're on a much older release
   <fantasai> http://wiki.csswg.org/test/css2.1

   some discussion of all the different pages that are being created to
   track problems
   <fantasai> http://wiki.csswg.org/test/css2.1/issues
   <fantasai> I think the pages are just that one and the ones peter listed
   <fantasai> http://wiki.csswg.org/test/css2.1/results
   <fantasai> http://wiki.csswg.org/test/css2.1/invalid
   <fantasai> http://wiki.csswg.org/test/css2.1/blocking
   fantasai: Unless Peter created more pages, that should be all of them.
   arronei volunteers to consolidate everything into the invalid/blocking pages
   arronei: I'll create subpages for the blocking issue
   fantasai suggests grouping tests that have the same issue into the same
            wiki page
   plinss: We need to have other people take responsibility for analyzing
           the test failures, not just arron.
   arronei: I'll do enough to get us started
   <smfr> z-index-abspos-009 is a hixie test
   <dbaron> A bunch of them (e.g., abspos-*, float-wrap-*), we've already
            discussed in telecons and discussed next steps for implementors.
   plinss: I want to get a commitment from the owners to review these tests
           and describe their status by next week
   dbaron: The ones that are mine we already had a telecon discussion about
   plinss: Did we get to a resolution?
   dbaron: I think in both cases we came to a resolution of who was going
           to fix their implementations
   dbaron: But I couldn't find minutes
   dbaron: For the abspos one it was a small bug in Gecko and one in Opera
   dbaron: For the float-wrap ones we had passes from MS, and I said I
           would flip our behavior after FF4 and see what happens.
   <dbaron> I think it was Opera, but not sure
   <dbaron> (this is all from memory)
   dbaron: Actually float-wrap-top might be different from the ones I
           think... I'd need to go back and look
   plinss: active-selector-002 has been updated
   plinss: active-page-breaks?
   fantasai: rewritten
   dbaron: bidi-004 is tricky. There are a bunch of implementations that
           are close, but not very close.
   dbaron: The remaining bug for us is very hairy
   plinss: Can you write up the comments?
   dbaron: Prefer if fantasai did
   fantasai: I can do the ones I understand, and the ones I'm not sure
             of would like you to review and add comments.
   fantasai: Can't do floats-wrap though
   dbaron: I'll do those
   fantasai: Here's the assignments:
   fantasai: Arron does MS tests
   fantasai: dbaron does floats-wrap and abspos
   fantasai: Arron does margin-collapse
   fantasai: I do anything under my folder, HP's folder, Mozilla's folder
             (other than the above), and Hixie's folder
   fantasai: and approved/
   fantasai: I think that should cover all of the tests
   <dbaron> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2010Nov/0124.html
            may be relevant data for the margin-* tests
   fantasai: I think the first step is for Arron to create a template for
             subpages and put a few up so that dbaron and I can copy
   arronei: Sure, I'll do that today
   plinss: We also have a bunch of tests that we're lacking data for
   plinss: Got a bunch of results from Apple this morning
   plinss: Still need data from the other browsers
   plinss: Big gap here is Prince, which may save us in some cases
   fantasai: Another implementation we can test is Antenna House. That
             may be especially useful for the page-breaking tests
   fantasai: Although we'd want to test against the updated tests,
             since a bunch have been fixed.
   fantasai: I'll see if I can set up a nightly build on the server
   fantasai: Now that we have a server with somewhat up-to-date software...
   plinss: I can help with that if you need any help
   plinss: Ok, let's get a nightly build set up and then we'll ping
           Antenna House
   plinss: any other topics?

Module Template
---------------

   fantasai: I updated the module template and put it on dev.w3.org
   http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-module/
   fantasai: You'll notice there's a lot more boilerplate text. This is
             partly because there was a lot of normative text in the
             Snapshot
   fantasai: Which if we don't have a normative Snapshot, needs to be
             moved someplace else.
   * sylvaing has resolved to say nothing about snapshots...
   fantasai: And partly it's things that over the years people have
             commented as being missing in our modules.
   fantasai: This means that all of our existing modules need to be
             updated with the relative normative bits.
   fantasai: That would be, Selectors, Namespaces, Background and
             Borders, UI, MultiCol, Color, Media Queries, etc.
   fantasai: So I would suggest everyone review the template, since
             this has to go in all our specs...

   SteveZ: We haven't resolved the Snapshot issue.
   SteveZ: My concern is that by copying this stuff all over the place,
           it will get inconsistent.
   SteveZ: But I think we agreed to postpone the Snapshot

   <fantasai> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-module/#partial
   <fantasai> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-module/#experimental
   <fantasai> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-module/#placement
   <fantasai> These are the bits that were taken from the Snapshot
   plinss: So meanwhile, the editors should review these.
   plinss: That's it for today.

Meeting closed.

<arronei> Simple template for the blocking testcases
           http://wiki.csswg.org/test/css2.1/blocking/margin-collapse
<arronei> please review the template and apply it to your testcase
           failures on the blocking page
Received on Thursday, 6 January 2011 20:42:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:35 GMT