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

[CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2011-03-02

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 13:11:33 -0800
Message-ID: <4D6EB285.3050600@inkedblade.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

   - Discussed F2F topic scheduling. CSS2.1 on Monday, layout topics on
   - RESOLVED: Simplify quotes-035 so that it doesn't test the part Opera
               implements incorrectly so that we can get a second pass.
   - RESOLVED: Sizing of replaced elements with intrinsic ratio but no width or
               height (i.e. scalable SVG) is undefined in CSS2.1 due to lack of
               correct implementations.
   - RESOLVED: Proposal accepted for CSS2.1 Issue 222
   - Reviewed a handful of other issues, including edits for Issue 60.

ACTION everyone Add time estimates to your topics on the wiki

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


   César Acebal
   Tab Atkins (via IRC)
   David Baron
   Bert Bos
   Arron Eicholz
   Elika Etemad
   Simon Fraser
   Sylvain Galineau
   Daniel Glazman
   Soonbo Han (LG Electronics)
   John Jansen
   Brad Kemper
   Hĺkon Wium Lie
   Peter Linss
   David Singer

<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/03/02-css-irc
ScribeNick: fantasai


   glazou: F2F meeting next week
   glazou: 3 items for today: CSS2.1 Issues, the F2F itself, Tokyo F2F + workshop
   glazou: Unclear to me if there is anything we should spend on 2.1 now
   glazou: since we are going to meet f2f next week
   glazou: Let's start with next week's agenda and agenda items
   glazou: thoughts?
   Bert: Let's do f2f

F2F Topics and Agenda

   glazou: Several people sent arrival and departure information to mailing
           list. If you haven't yet, please do so so dbaron can compile the
           attendance list
   glazou: Anything else people should note for Monday morning?
   dbaron: Don't think so. Put 9am on the meeting page.
   glazou: Some ppl interested in dinner plans for Sunday. Let's try to
           gather somewhere, we'll discuss through email on Sunday.

   glazou: We have a few options here. We could start discussing agenda now,
           or keep as 1st item for Monday morning
   glazou: It's helpful to note which days people are around. I believe John
           is leaving early, on Tuesday evening
   dbaron: I copied data from the wiki onto meeting page, along with
           information sent via meeting survey and email
   <dbaron> http://www.w3.org/Style/Group/2011/MountainView#participants
   glazou: John, since you're mostly the only one who won't make all three
           days, which items do you want to addressed during your time?
   johnjan: CSS2.1
   sylvaing: Markus and Phil are coming in to discuss layout on Tuesday,
             would be best to put related topics all on Tuesday
   * sylvaing wow, 27 attendees

   glazou: Can you describe what you want to discuss for multi-col?
   howcome: Want to get closure on the pseudo-algorithm
   glazou: If you would add to the wiki the time you would need for that...
   glazou: Everybody please add estimated times for your topics
   glazou: A couple of NTT participants didn't send information, maybe Koji
           can follow up.
   dbaron: There are four participants registered so far from NTT


   glazou: John, you sent a long email listing blocking issues
   glazou: You list 5 blocking tests
   <glazou> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110111/html4/quotes-035.htm
   John's email:

     I believe we should get as much of CSS2.1 complete before the Face-2-Face
     as we can. Ideally, I think we all agree that we should spend only a short
     time during the face-to-face making sure we're complete on CSS2.1. If we
     leave too many open issues until then, we will run over which will be
     detrimental to the remaining agenda items.

     To that end, I think we should use the conference call tomorrow to discuss
     Blocking Tests and Spec Issues. It would probably be best if everyone
     reviewed these ahead of time as well, so we can effectively discuss on the
     phone. I'm including a list of the blocking tests and spec issues below.

     The remaining blocking tests look like this:
       Status: Gecko passes.
       Howcome, Where is Opera on their fixes? If it's not fixed in
       their nightlies, I propose we remove the test. Address in errata.
       Status: No passes.
       I propose we remove the test. Address in errata.
       Status: Prince passes.
       I propose we remove the test. Address in errata.
       Status: Trident and Prince pass this test.
       Why is the test in the test harness different from the one above? I
       propose we simply use the old test.
       Does not exist. Bidi-004: http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110111/html4/bidi-004.htm
       Status: Trident Passes.
       If Prince or WebToPdf do not pass, I propose we remove the test.
       Address in errata.
     The remaining Spec issues look like this:
       60 - Sylvain and Bert Edit
       142 - Bert Edit
       153 - Bert Edit
       159 - Bert Edit
       181 - Bert Edit
       192 - Tab - Summarize
       197 - Closed
       198 - Closed
       199 - ALL REVIEW
       204 - NEEDS PROPOSAL. I suggest we move to Errata.
       205 - NEEDS DISCUSSION. I suggest we move to Errata.
       206 - Bert needs to respond.
       207 - NEEDS DISCUSSION. I suggest we move to Errata (clearance is under-spec'd).
       208 - NEEDS DISCUSSION. I suggest we move to Errata.
       209 - Closed
       210 - Bert Edit
       211 - DBaron made a proposal. Approve? Bert Edit
       212 - NEEDS DISCUSSION. I suggest we leave it as is.
       213 - Bert Edit
       214 - Closed
       215 - Bert Edit
       216 - Bert Edit
       218 - Bert Edit
       219 - Fantasai - Proposal.
       220 - Bert Edit
       221 - Bert Edit
       222 - Trivial. Suggest to leave as is.
       223 - Trivial. Suggest to leave as is.
       224 - Fantasai - review

   glazou: First item is quotes-035
   glazou: Only one browser passes: Gecko
   johnjan: last I looked at this, someone mentioned was only a couple small fixes
   <dbaron> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2011Jan/0095.html
   johnjan: but if they're not made, we should remove the test
   dbaron: It's a very comprehensive test, so we should just simplify the
           test a bit instead of removing it
   dbaron: Also if we are making those things undefined, we should make
           them a SHOULD and say that they will be defined in a future level
   ?: Who edits that test?
   (The test belongs to hixie.)
   fantasai: Do we have any contact with the developer responsible at Opera?
   Howcome explains that bugs have been filed; but nobody has talked to the
     developer who knows the code.
   RESOLVED: Simplify test.

   <glazou> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110111/html4/replaced-intrinsic-ratio-001.htm
   johnjan: I think we should just remove it, not rely on Opera to fix it.
   dbaron: I've been working on that fix this week.
   glazou: That's only one implementation.
   smfr: I haven't had time to work on this.
   glazou: Do you think you will have time to work on this?
   smfr: No
   glazou: So we should remove the test
   fantasai: So what are we going to do, put in the spec that the behavior
             of SVG is undefined?
   <TabAtkins> Officially, it is.
   <TabAtkins> We know what it *should* say, but it's not present in SVG at
               the moment.
   <TabAtkins> I move for "undefined, but with a note about the expected
               behavior once SVG is updated appropriately".
   <fantasai> SVG doesn't need an update, Tab. Our spec needs to say that the
              sizing of replaced elements with an intrinsic ratio and no width
              or height is undefined.
   <fantasai> Because that's what the test is testing.
   sylvaing: So where are we moving the definition to?
   <TabAtkins> Ah, right, just a ratio.  Sorry.  Yeah, undefined.
   <TabAtkins> It should be in Image Values, imo.
   <fantasai> yes
   RESOLVED: Sizing of replaced elements with intrinsic ratio but no width or
             height (i.e. scalable SVG) is UNDEFINED in CSS2.1.
   ACTION: fantasai write a proposal to remove the existing definition
   <trackbot> Created ACTION-300

   <glazou> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110111/html4/forced-page-breaks-000.htm
   johnjan: Prince passes this test
   Does Web2PDF pass?
   plinss: We have a pass.

   <glazou> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110111/html4/orphans-004a.htm
   johnjan: orphans-004a is different now in the harness than in the last suite
   plinss: Web2PDF and Prince pass 004a
   <plinss> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/orphans-004a.htm
   plinss: The link pasted is RC5, the harness is running on the nightly builds
   glazou: Do we have passes for 004b?
   plinss: Opera, IE, and Web2PDF

   johnjan: bidi-004
   ACTION: fantasai remove remaining white-space processing portion of test
   <trackbot> Created ACTION-301

   glazou: Still have issues that need editing. Bert?
   glazou: Will you be able to make the edits before the F2F?
   Bert: I got stuck on the first two, sent messages to the mailing list.
   Bert: Not sure I can finish all of them, but should have a story any
         remaining ones
   glazou asks about 206
   <johnjan> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-206
   Bert explains that the lexer is not context-sensitive, which is why
        there is only one token

   sylvaing: That was the big z-index issue with Anton Prowse
   sylvaing: We agreed on the resolution
   sylvaing: Bert changed things in the edits
   sylvaing: Anton disagreed with some of the edits
   sylvaing: But it went in anyway
   sylvaing: In the process of checking the edits, fantasai noticed some problems
   sylvaing: Rather than editing this further, I think we should revert to
             the original proposal
   sylvaing: I'm not comfortable messing with this so close to finishing the spec
   fantasai: I don't mind working from Bert's version, as long as the errors
             are fixed and Anton approves the result.
   fantasai: So, Bert, I suggest you work on Issue 60 first, go through the
             messages I posted and Anton posted to the mailing list on the
             review and address all of the comments there.
   fantasai: Then post the editor's draft to the mailing list and ask Anton
             to review and suggest any further edits he feels necessary

   <johnjan> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-222
   <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Oct/0027.html
   RESOLVED: Proposal accepted for Issue 222

   <johnjan> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-223
   <dbaron> I think "further content" means "content after the float's
   johnjan: Should we work on another issue, or assign people to work on issues?
   glazou: If the issues require a lot of time to discuss, it may delay
           things again.
   fantasai: Bert is probably the most qualified to comment on this; he should
             review the issue and propose how to deal with it at the F2F.

   Issues 204 and 205 assumed editorial;.
   207 deferred to F2F (clearance)

Meeting closed.
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 21:12:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:44 UTC