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

[CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2011-06-22

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 13:46:38 -0400
Message-ID: <4E022A7E.7010505@inkedblade.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Summary:
   - RESOLVED: CSSWG F2F July 24-26, Sunday-Tuesday, in Seattle, FXTF on Tuesday
   - RESOLVED: Close normalization issue as out-of-scope, send response to
               i18n, and take Namespaces to PR.
   - CSSWG has no comments on DOM3 Events LC,
     but some members have comments which they will send separately.
   - ACTION everyone: Review css3-images for next week; plan is to publish an updated WD
   - CSS3 Writing Modes issues will now be tracked in Tracker.
     Send only one issue per email to www-style.
   - Molly is looking for ideas for SXSW; email her about it.


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

Present:

   Tab Atkins
   David Baron
   Kimberly Blessing (Comcast)
   John Daggett
   Arron Eicholz
   Elika Etemad
   Simon Fraser
   Sylvain Galineau
   Daniel Glazman
   Molly Holzschlag
   Koji Ishii
   Brad Kemper
   Anne van Kesteren
   Håkon Wium Lie
   Chris Lilley
   Peter Linss
   Alex Mogilevsky
   Edward O'Connor
   Florian Rivoal (Opera Software)
   Alan Stearns
   Daniel Weck
   Steve Zilles

<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/06/22-css-irc
Scribe: fantasai

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

   plinss: any additions to agenda?
   mollydotcom: SXSW is asking for what we're going to do to participate
   jdaggett: F2F first?

F2F Scheduling
--------------

   plinss: Where are we on that?
   alexmog: We have a number of options: Adobe, MS, and Google
   sylvaing: we don't have confirmation yet, but working on it
   alexmog: Both Google and Adobe are in Seattle, and MS has offices in
            Seattle as well; not sure ...
   alexmog: It is possible, can do joint hosting as before
   glazou: Before speaking of final location, can we speak about dates so
           we can start booking plane tickets?
   jdaggett: I think the exact location can be worked out in the next few
             weeks or so, but dates are important to work out soon
   Florian: I haven't had time to sync up with other Opera people, but
            that week doesn't work for me. One week earlier or August would
            work better for me.
   plinss: Other folks with constraints?
   <anne> August 1 is my birthday, but I don't care strongly
   <anne> not like many people are around in Europe :)
   smfr: It overlaps with SVG, which is convenient for those of us going to SVG
   plinss: What are exact dates of SVG?
   someone: 26-29
   plinss: Our current proposal is 28-30
   plinss: so 2 days of overlap
   fantasai: 25-27 (M-W) would give us same overlap
   jdaggett: Are there people other than Florian with conflicts?
   glazou: I must be in Paris on Sunday the 31st
   glazou: So a meeting on Saturday the 30th is not very convenient for me
   Florian: 25-27 is still hard for me but slightly better
   <mollydotcom> good for me
   plinss: any conflicts with 25-27?
   glazou: Conflict with SVG for Vincent, ChrisL, etc.
   fantasai: get that either way
   fantasai: If we want to reduce overlap with SVG, we can shift onto Sunday
   discussion of access to buildings on weekends
   Florian: could also do CSS the previous week, unless that's too far apart?
   jdaggett: For me the week before is bad
   fantasai: So it seems M-W works better than Th-Sat. question is, do we
             want to shift onto Sunday to reduce overlap with SVG?
   Florian: for me, the earlier the better
   plinss: So should we say 24-26?
   plinss: Any problems with those days?
   plinss: Sunday-Tuesday
   RESOLVED: CSSWG F2F July 24-26, Sunday-Tuesday, in Seattle, FXTF on Tuesday

Intrinsic Widths of Multi-column Elements
-----------------------------------------

   <plinss> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Apr/0316.html
   howcome: We did discuss this a few weeks ago
   plinss: Did we get a resolution?
   howcome: I think the resolution was to discuss it at a future date
   fantasai: I think we agreed to leave it undefined for now
   howcome: I'm all for writing a spec for intrinsic widths, but I don't
            think multicol elements should be treated specially
   howcome: and that would add things to consider for testing/PR
   fantasai: IIRC my testing showed that multicol did have some special
             behavior. I think this requres more testing, investigation,
             discussion before we can come up with a spec

CSS Namespaces PR
-----------------

   plinss: Had telecon with i18n and W3M, getting their feedback on
           normalization issues
   plinss: State of the world is that they're not going to be blocking
           Namespaces. There are concerns about Selectors, but Namespaces
           can proceed.
   plinss: Way to move forward with this issue is to take it to the TAG
   ChrisL: So we would file the issue with the TAG, then propose to move
           forward with Selectors and Namespaces
   ChrisL: We say this is the issue, know it exists and needs to be solved,
           but has to be solved W3C-wide, and we'll move forward and deal
           with it later
   anne: I don't think it needs to be solved
   plinss: Either way, we're not the ones solving it
   plinss: It's important to many people, but something we've lived for a
           long time without
   fantasai: so I propose closing this issue as Out-of-Scope and taking
             Namespaces to PR
   http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-namespace/issues-3
   http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS3/Namespace/20090210/reports/implement-report.html
   fantasai: So do we want to move Namespaces to PR?
   <ChrisL> yes
   <dbaron> It would be really nice if
            http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS3/Namespace/20090210/ had a link
            to http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS3/Namespace/20090210/reports/implement-report.html
   RESOLVED: Close normalization issue as out-of-scope, send response to
             i18n, and take Namespaces to PR.
   ACTION fantasai: do the above
   <trackbot> Created ACTION-331

DOM3 Events 2nd LC
------------------

   glazou: I sent a comment myself, got feedback from chairs and members
           of group, but it was strictly personal
   glazou: I mentioned the new CSS3 UI selectors and said we could be
           interested in events matching the new :invalid/:whatever
   glazou: but they said it was to late
   glazou: but willing to consider for the next level
   glazou: other than that, I had no comments myself

   plinss: Anyone else reviewed it? Any other feedback?
   TabAtkins: I think Anne's draft was much better than DOM3 is doing,
              but that doesn't need to be CSSWG's opinion
   glazou: It's difficult to send such a comment without showing why it's better.
   TabAtkins will send this as a personal comment.

   ChrisL: It was good to see keyboard and text events which competing
           implementations like flash and silverlight already have
   ChrisL: I might send that in as a comment myself

   plinss: Not hearing any WG comments at this point
   glazou: Should I send official answer that we have no comments?
   ACTION glazou: Send no comments comment for DOM3 Events
   <trackbot> Created ACTION-332

Charter
-------

   ChrisL: I got feedback that the list of high priority items (-> PR items)
   ChrisL: I got a comment back saying some of those will and some of those won't
   ChrisL: So was wondering exactly how to edit
   fantasai: Should be instructions in the minutes from the F2F

   ChrisL: The other thing is that there are discussions about FXTF scope
   ChrisL: Should sort that out first
   ChrisL: So my plan is to send a draft charter to AC, and ask for an extension
   ChrisL: until end of August
   ChrisL: Does that seem like an OK plan?
   sounds reasonable to ppl
   <ChrisL> charter extension lets us publish meanwhile
   RESOLVED: send draft charter to AC but request extension until everything
             has been worked out exactly

   plinss: What do we need to do to sort out the FXTF stuff?
   ChrisL: My recollection was to have that on the agenda this week
   plinss: What are the contentious issues here?
   ChrisL: For Transitions wasn't clear, did CSSWG want to keep that as a
           separate spec
   ChrisL: So whether to jointly develop that
   sylvaing: Could also argue that we need to talk about that for 2D and
             3D Transforms
   sylvaing: They use same properties. Would be weird to move one to CR
             while other is behind
   plinss: I'm confused about your questions, Chris.
   ChrisL: Question is to have Transitions and Animations both worked on
           by the FXTF
   dbaron: Why?
   ChrisL: They apply both to SVG and to HTML
   ChrisL: Needs to be clear how that works
   dbaron: That could be said about most modules in CSS
   ChrisL: That's true, but in this case, but in this case we have animation
           model in CSS and not clear that same model is being used in SVG
   ChrisL: More potential conflicts
   ChrisL: No call for CSS Fonts to be developed in TF, since it's clear how
           they apply.
   ChrisL: And box model stuff doesn't apply to SVG
   ChrisL: So not everything needs to be jointly developed. Just certain
           things need to be.
   ChrisL: And we have to get that list pinned down.
   ChrisL: Vincent had sent a list of suggestions. Maybe we should defer
           this until he's back.
   ChrisL: I would like to go through that list in detail and see what people
           think of it
   PLAN: go over that list next week

CSS3 Images
-----------

   TabAtkins: The big remaining issue is the gradient keyword interpretation.
   TabAtkins: I think everything else is ok.
   TabAtkins: There's been a while since the last WD
   TabAtkins: Mostly from the last time I asked for a WD
   suggestion to add a change list to the spec
   <sylvaing> I'd rather preserve a WD that reflects current implementations
              while pending issues are being resolved
   fantasai: There's a bunch of changes to the draft that I think we should
             get published, rather than waiting to resolve all the potential
             issues; we should just mark the open issues in the draft and
             publish
   Brad: Maybe publish the change list and then look at it for a week before
         publishing
   TabAtkins: OK, I will get a list of changes up today or tomorrow, and then
              we can discuss publishing next week
   ACTION Tab: make change list for css3-images similar to CSS3 Text etc.
   <trackbot> Created ACTION-333

   <sylvaing> we also have issues with normative OM serialization
   <sylvaing> for instance, background-position serialization is not defined
              by the spec and shouldn't be defined there. in turn, this
              implies Image Values depends on another draft that will delay
              progress of Image Values down the standard track. another:
              incompatible with current CSSOM ED and serialization in the
              latter has not been reviewed by the WG either.
   <sylvaing> there are others
   ACTION everyone: Review css3-images so we can publish next week

CSS3 Writing Modes
------------------

   jdaggett: There are problems in the spec.
   fantasai: What problems? I need a list, otherwise I can't take any actions.
   <dbaron> What issue tracking mechanism is being used for the spec?
   <smfr> dbaron++
   szilles: Not adequately pointing to the Unicode field lists
   fantasai: I added http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-writing-modes/#character-properties
   <dbaron> and can we at least make sure that all the issues being discussed
            are filed in that system?
   jdaggett: The way text-orientation is defined, it's not clear to me that
             it's implementable
   jdaggett: Nat McCully also says that
   jdaggett: How do we solve that, I don't know.
   <ChrisL> there are issues and there are not concrete proposals to fix them
            and thus, john is correct that moving to last call on the spec is
            premature. Unless parts of the spec are expected to be non normative
            and not testable in CR
   Ed: Maybe the way to move forward with that would be to go to LC, so we can
       get feedback from the wider community
   jdaggett: Saying that it's LC is saying that it's done.
   <sylvaing> if implementors are concerned about implementability i don't
              get how we can move to LC
   szilles: Simple example I put it was whether punctuation lies between two
            characters of a given class be handled
   szilles: my feeling was that the topics raised during the dicussion at the
            F2F were issues
   szilles: I reviewed the minutes, and I have to say the minutes are not at
            all clear on that
   <sylvaing> also, given that writing-mode is implemented by some browsers
              with different values, i wonder whether we should apply the
              pattern we applied to another property at the f2f whereby
              writing-mode and its old values is deprecated and a new prop
              name is used
   dbaron: We need to track issues somewhere
   fantasai: I've just been working off the mailing list so far, but we need
             something more formal
   fantasai: I'm going to suggest using tracker.
   http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Tracker/
   <Ms2ger> Bugzilla? :)
   Florian: Is there anything that is marked as an issue in either the draft
            that you don't know what people are complaining about?
   jdaggett: The problem with text-orientation is in Eric Muller's email
   Florian: It's not clear why we're not ready for LC, but we're not ready for LC.
   Florian: So we should use Tracker and go from there.
   <ChrisL> I agree with Florian
   <jdaggett> my point earlier was that the entire discussion at the F2F
              of writing-modes
   <jdaggett> brought up many topics that are clearly issues with the current
              spec
   fantasai: I'm abdicating any responsibility for filing issues. People
             should file their own issues so they can explain them themselves.
   ACTION fantasai: Post message to mailing list about neutral punctuation
                    resolution proposal from F2F
   <trackbot> Created ACTION-334
   ACTION Steve: Ask Eric to review current draft
   <trackbot> Created ACTION-335
   <ChrisL> follow-up emails should include the issue number so tracker
            picks them up
   fantasai: File one issue per email to www-style

SXSW
----

   mollydotcom: They've contacted me to see what we want to do for SXSW
   mollydotcom: I think we ended up with a good idea that didn't track with
                many ppl and put us in a huge room
   mollydotcom: I'm brainstorming for what to do, if you have ideas contact me.

Meeting closed.
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 17:47:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:41 GMT