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

[CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2011-07-13

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:48:03 -0700
Message-ID: <4E1E3CC3.807@inkedblade.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

Summary:
   - Discussed default orientation of characters in vertical text
   - Discussed logistics for Seattle F2F. Sylvain needs people to
     register so he can plan.
   - Draft CSSWG charter sent to AC:
       http://www.w3.org/2010/09/CSSWG/charter.html
   - RESOLVED: publish the CSS device adaptation spec FPWD
   - ACTION to everyone to review CSS3 Speech
       http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-speech/
     and to collect comments on HTML5 LC
       http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/

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

Present:
   CÚsar Acebal
   David Baron
   Bert Bos
   Kimberly Blessing
   John Daggett
   Arron Eicholz
   Elika Etemad
   Simon Fraser
   Sylvain Galineau
   Daniel Glazman
   Arno Gourdol
   Koji Ishii
   John Jansen
   Brad Kemper
   Vincent Hardy
   Chris Lilley
   Peter Linss
   Divya Manian
   Edward O'Connor
   Florian Rivoal
   David Singer
   Daniel Weck
   Steve Zilles

   <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/07/13-css-irc
   ScribeNick: vhardy

Administrative
--------------

   glazou: New agenda topics?
   fantasai: discussion about priorities and schedule for things in writing-modes
   glazou: anything else?
   <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jul/0004.html

Writing Modes
-------------

   glazou: writing modes, following from last week
   glazou: I missed the last minutes of last week.
   jdaggett: this is Fantasai's proposal. My proposal is different.
   jdaggett: I do not see the need to compare the bidi algo.
   <jdaggett> Figure 7: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-writing-modes/#vertical-intro
   jdaggett: for the text orientation, you need a way to distiguish for
             different unicode point, which are going to rotate and the ones
             that are going to remain upright.
   jdaggett: if you look at figure 7 in the writing mode spec (link above).
   jdaggett: this is the problem that text orientation is trying to address.
             You have content that is rendered in different directions
             depending on context.
   jdaggett: 2011 is rendered upright but also rotated right.
   jdaggett: If you have normal punctuation ascii characters for example, it
             is not clear what direction they should have in all cases.
   jdaggett: For emoticon, for example, the orientation may be different
             depending on context (e.g., in english text or in japanese text).
   jdaggett: My proposal was that for ambiguous characters, they would take
             the orientation of the surrounding text.
   florianr: it seems that what your propose is close to what fantasai is
             proposing.
   jdaggett: yes, but I do not see the need to bring in BiDi to resolve this
             simpler problem.
   florian: if you want to drop the introduction, that is fine.
   jdaggett: BiDi has nesting behaviors.
   fantasai: in some cases, the context is ambiguous, and BiDi has already
             solutions for resolving ambiguous contexts.
   fantasai: I could rewrite without using the BiDi reference but use the
             same algorithm.
   ACTION fantasai: rewrite proposal to not reference bidi because it's confusing
   <trackbot> Created ACTION-338
   <dsinger_> It seems that the same ambiguities arise don't they?
   jdaggett: starting the explanation by details of the BiDi algorithm is obtuse.
   fantasai: Is the action item satisfactory?
   glazou: the issue is about the algorithm, not the word BiDi
   <dsinger_> So John thinks some other algorithm applies??
   fantasai: I thought you wanted the same behavior. I do not understand what
             you want.
   szilles: I sent a message last night which suggested that using the script
            TR instead of the BiDi TR would make more sense. Simpler, covers
            a number of the cases that jdaggett wanted to cover.
   szilles: It is a simpler description. It is not algorithmic unfortunately.
            There are problems with matching code.
   szilles: The second thing I suggested (less sure about this one, but
            suggested to me by Eric): since there are a number of characters
            that cover the common cases (punctuations and symbols) that come
            with a particular full width code. If you want the unrotated one,
            you would use the full width code. I am less certain about this one.
   szilles: Eric was suggesting that we should have simple rules that did not
            try to be clever if we did not need to be.
   jdaggett: we need to decide to address or not address: what is the use of
             full width code points in this mode. You suggest to use it as a
             way to guarantee that the characters are upright.
   jdaggett: this may create problems with search in browsers.
   fantasai: this is broken in browsers. They should use NFK decomposition.
   jdaggett: if you have NASA, there are actually two different code points
             for each letter: one is the ascii version and one is the full
             width version. In vertical text, the natural orientation of
             ascii characters is rotated right. For full width, they remain
             upright in vertical text.
   jdaggett: we are talking about presentational attributes. They have nothing
             to do with content. We are talking about changing the code points
             to fit the presentation.
   jdaggett: I am not sure if it is indirectly, but in JLRec they are going
             away from using the full width code point.
   szilles: I do not disagree. I wanted to bring it up, because it provides a
            simple consistent rule.
   szilles: I think this was also the rule in the original Microsoft
            implementation.
   jdaggett: do we want to perpetuate this.
   szilles: what is the mechanism for a person to control things if the rules
            do not do what we want?
   jdagette: we need a default rule. Every code point has a natural orientation.
             Then, how do you control for characters that can go both ways.
             These two things are different. The spec does not have a way to
             define the default.
   florianr: the current spec., even though using BiDi, has a mechanism for
             defining the default orientation.
   jdagette: The appendix has definitions, that if you take normatively, would
             give you a definition. jdaggett says there is no normative
             definition.
   jdagett: I do not think these should be in appendices. Appendix C, if you
            are just writing a classification scheme is ok. If you are
            explaining the classification, it should be in the body of the
            text and it should be normative.
   jdagett: we need a better default.
   <dsinger> 1) vertical writing is not an exclusively web/html/css problem,
                and we shouldn't be defining how to do it; that's a Unicode
                problem.
   <dsinger> 2) the existence of two code points for 'N', 'A', 'S' is not our
                problem either
   <dsinger> I'm still unclear whether the problem is that (a) Elika's algorithm
             is wrong or too complex, and we need to refer to a different one
             (b) the write-up is too complex or confusing or (c) the write-up
             should not mention Bidi.
   florianr: I agree we need something and it should be normative. If we take
             fantasai's mail, removing the BiDi reference, and moving text to
             the body of the text. Is that something we agree on?
   szilles: no, I do not agree with the algorithm. Also, there is disagreement
            on whether the code point should be used to determine orientation.
   * glazou allocates no more than 3 extra minutes to this topic
   <glazou> we shift at :30
   szilles: shapes script should never been shown upright.
   glazou: 3mn left on this topic.
   szilles: we need to find a way to resolve the issues that are remaining.
   szilles: it is not just the algorithm.
   jdaggett: I can list the issues, not necessarily propose solutions.
   * sylvaing did we have a list of the problems we intend to solve ? (no spec,
              no properties, no spec - just requirements)
   szilles: we can also discuss this at the F2F.
   ACTION: jdaggett to outline the questions we need to address with regards
           to text orientation in writing-modes.
   <trackbot> Created ACTION-339

   glazou: Topic: Scheduling?
   fantasai: for writing modes, we have the ability to say explicitly if a text
             is upright or sideways. There was a suggestion for alternative
             syntax for code-points. I think we will not finish the spec. if
             we go that way.
   jdaggett: I think this is dependent on the other questions we need to
             address.
   fantasai: the other issue, is that the spec. says that if the font has
             information about the orientation of the characters, then you
             use it, otherwise you sythesize it from the rules in the spec.
             appendix.
   fantasai: most characters will be oriented properly, some may not be.
   fantasai: if we want to define things in full details for automatic
             determination, it will take another 6 months to 1 year.
   fantasai: In the meanwhile, people are writing to the ePub spec and people
             are not going to implement this correctly. The ePub spec will
             track our behavior, not syntax. We will have an ecosystem that
             will use the epub syntax and it is standardized.
   jdaggett: There has not been anything defined so far that epub is going
             down a specific way. I do not see a huge issue with the schedule.
   fantasai: we are asking ePub to have a different syntax while we are
             figuring out things that I do not think are critical.
   jdaggett: the problems have not been worked out.
   glazou: we need to take this offline or at the face to face.
   <fantasai> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-writing-modes/#text-orientation
   sylvaing: I would like to see use cases that can be understood by me and
             the rest of the group.
   szilles: we are trying to define the default behavior.
   sylvaing: I would like to see the requirements and use cases. They would
             be helpful.
   * ChrisL suggests sylvain express that in email
   szilles: the original requirements came from Michel.
   glazou: let's move this to email.

F2F
---

   <glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/planning/seattle-2011
   glazou: we only have 6 agenda items for the meeting. We need more. I am not
           sure if everybody has filled in the meeting page.
   sylvain: I have 17 people registered. Please register ASAP. For the joint
            meeting, I only have 30 seats.
   sylvain: how can I modify the Wiki page?
   <fantasai> you already have an account that you made with username sylvaing
   sylvain: we have having issues finding extra rooms at the Marriott.
            Will provide another hotel.
   <smfr> did sylvaing say that the joint meeting with svg was thursday?
   <ChrisL> svg wg registration results at
            http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/19480/SeattleJuly2011/results
   szilles: is the courtyard fully booked?
   sylvaing: issues on Sunday. Other days seem ok.
   <ChrisL> @glazou agenda items for the FX tf day are here
            http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/F2F/Seattle_2011/agenda_proposals
   sylvaing: joint meeting is on Tuesday.
   sylvaing: there will be a hosted dinner on Sunday night.
   <plinss> http://www.w3.org/Style/Group/2011/Seattle
   sylvaing: we are interseted in flexbox, gradients and grids.
   florianr: should we discuss single origin too?
   we need jdaggett for that.
   * BradK will not be able to attend in person, but I'd like to call in, at
           least for certain topics (such as gradients).
   jdaggett: I could dial in, but we need more progress before we can discuss
             it again.
   glazou: anything else on F2F?
   <plinss> BradK, we can set up a conf call for any topics you want to call
            in for, just let us know which...

Charter
-------

   ChrisL: charter has been updated with the expected state in the next few
           years instead of priorities.
   <jdaggett> url?
   <glazou> http://www.w3.org/2010/09/CSSWG/charter.html
   <jdaggett> thx
   <BradK_> Will I be able to connect to f2f via Zakim?
   chrisl: charter has been sent to the AC. If there are no comments, will be
           sent to AC for balotting.

Publication Requests
--------------------

   glazou: Topic: 3 or 4 publication requests
   glazou: CSS Device Adaptation from Florian.
   florianr: we asked to have it published. We added all the pending issues
             so it should be ready to publish.
   glazou: objections to publish?
   RESOLVED: publish the CSS device adaptation spec FPWD

   glazou: deanj requested to publish css3 animations.
   <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jul/0157.html
   fantasai: are the issues captured as issues in the draft?
   sylvaing: we provided feedback that should be captured in the draft.
   dbaron: I can also help.
   ACTION: dean to add issues listing the remaining discussion points to be
           resolved in css animation and css transitions before they can be
           published.
   <trackbot> Created ACTION-340

   glazou: CSS3 speech ready?
   daniel: not as a LC WD. I would like to ask if the WG has been able to
           look at my proposal.
   daniel: I need to align the css syntax with the ssml syntax.
   daniel: the syntaxes are incompatible. The more contentious issue is to
            add pre-recorded audio cues. I am still working on this.
   <danielweck> last issue
   <danielweck> voice-volume
   <danielweck> speech synthesis versus pre-recorded audio
   <danielweck> (will publish update later today)
   <danielweck> yes.
   glazou: we will discuss it again when Daniel says he is ready.

   <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jul/0126.html
   glazou: the next issue is css3-ui.
   glazou: Tantek resolved the issues from the last set of feedback. It
           seems to be ready.
   jdaggett: we need the editor to make a decision.
   glazou: we'll ask Tantek to join next week.
   glazou: could everybody review the css3-ui spec.
   ACTION: all to review the css3-ui last draft.

glazou: call next week?
(most people are available).
glazou: there will be a call next week.

HTML5 LC
--------

   bert: HTML5 issued a LC about a month ago. We should send comments or
         say we do not have comments. We should start collecting our feedback.
   glazou: there are a lot of things to say especially about the pseudos
           that were never discussed.
   bert: there is also things on rendering.
   glazou: styling of placeholders.
   bert: scoping as well.
   glazou: it is undefined.
   szilles: is there a list?
   ACTION: glazou to send the list of HTML5 comments to the CSS WG before
           the next F2F (Seattle)
   <trackbot> Created ACTION-341

Meeting closed.
Received on Thursday, 14 July 2011 00:48:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:42 GMT