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

[CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2011-03-23

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:12:26 -0700
Message-ID: <4D8A623A.6060701@inkedblade.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Summary:

   - Discussed whether to move June F2F location/dates
   - RESOLVED: Make table and inline-table undefined for min/max-width/height
               http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-240
   - RESOLVED: Accept updated proposal with "static" removed.
               http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-199
               http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0530.html
   - CSS2.1 Issue 203 deferred until WG can figure it out.

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

Present:

   CÚsar Acebal
   David Baron
   Bert Bos
   Arron Eicholz
   Elika Etemad
   Sylvain Galineau
   Daniel Glazman
   Arno Gourdol (Adobe)
   Koji Ishii
   John Jansen
   Brad Kemper
   Chris Lilley (late)
   Peter Linss
   Alex Mogilevsky (late)
   Edward O'Connor (Apple)
   Alan Stearns

<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/03/23-css-irc
ScribeNick: fantasai

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

   glazou: Regrets from Tab, Dave Singer, and Steve Zilles
   glazou: Any extra items for the agenda?

F2F
---

   glazou: First item is next F2F. We have to decide something about next
           F2F meeting
   glazou: I am not really myself in favor of going to Japan. The news we
           receive from Japan is mixed.
   glazou: Would like to hear from all WG members what you think about that,
           should we try to relocate?
   glazou: We have two alternative proposals, W3C to host in Sophia-Antipolis,
           or MS to host in Redmond
   sylvaing: Could also host elsewhere in Europe
   sylvaing: I'm in favor of waiting a few more weeks before making a final
             decision
   sylvaing: But set up a backup, then make a final decision in 3-4 weeks
   glazou: 3-4 weeks is too late for me
   glazou: I would like to be able to book flights 2 months in advance,
           because otherwise airline prices go crazy
   sylvaing: In this situation, you can't predict that.
   glazou: Not speaking of Japan, in general.
   sylvaing: If we cancel Japan, we can change the date of the F2F if need be
   sylvaing: For people who already booked for Japan, they already have a
             problem.
   glazou: Then we have to renegotiate dates that works for everyone.
   glazou asks for comments from everyone
   Bert: atm, I don't feel like going to Japan in 2 months.
   Bert: Later would work. Somewhere else would work for me too
   Arno: I'd be fine going to Japan
   Brad: I was already looking at not going to Japan due to expense.
   Brad: Even without expense, would be concerned about going there.
   Edward: We're likely to have more participants the closer it is to Cupertino.
           I'm willing to go to Japan, but others more likely to come to Redmond
   David: I have mixed feelings about Japan right now.
   David: As far as dates for Europe, I would prefer to keep current dates or
          earlier.
   David: Steve might be in same boat.
   David: AC meeting is in May in Europe.
   glazou: 15-17 of May
   sylvaing: So we would move it earlier, still need to negotiate dates.
   <Bert> (I checked local dates, and 23-27 May is OK for us, too)
   David: I'd be fine with current dates, too
   <Bert> (But not 18-20, because of several other events.)
   fantasai: I don't feel too concerned given the people from Tokyo don't
             seem too concerned.
   fantasai: In any case, I'm not available May 26-29.
   <bradk> my wife is more concerned about safety in Japan than I am, actually,
           but that counts.
   Koji: I don't think there's much problem with transportation, but some
         problems with electricity. Will talk to Japanese government tomorrow.
         Can we postpone until next week?
   glazou: OK.
   glazou: I would like to decide at least 60 days in advance.

   plinss: My concern is the Tokyo Workshop.
   plinss: If we didn't have the workshop, I would say let's just go somewhere
           else.
   plinss: But don't want to bail out from that, if it's still going on.
   plinss: So would like to hear about status of that
   Koji: I will talk to them tomorrow and get back to you.

   Bert: If we organize something here in Sophia, I've only asked for up to
         20 people. If we need more space, will have to ask again about
         arrangements.
   glazou: I will send a call for attendance after the telecon
   glazou: Don't think we can do better than that for now.

CSS2.1
------

   glazou: We have a few issues to revisit, due to answers to posts to www-style
   http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1
   fantasai: I'm confused about status of dbaron's issues. There's notes in
             the wiki, but couldn't tell if they are closed or not.
   <fantasai> 199 needs WG discussion
   <fantasai> 203 needs WG discussion
   <fantasai> I need to work with Bert on 215
   fantasai: The old definition said the top left corner of the leftmost box
             and the bottom right of the rightmost box.
   fantasai: That works fine for bidi splitting, just have a problem with
             splitting across multiple lines, which needs to be undefined.
   Bert: Oh, ok. I understand what needs to be done.
   <fantasai> 240 needs WG discussion
   * sylvaing also unless I missed it ISSUE-276 still needs resolution;
              Peter Moulder prefers :first-line/:first-letter to be pulled
              like run-in

   http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-240
   fantasai: Issue is undefining min-/max- width/height on table elements.
   fantasai: We stated undefined for internal elements, but missed table
             and inline-table.
   <dbaron> I agree min/max-width should be undefined for table and inline-table
   RESOLVED: Make table and inline-table undefined for min/max-width/height

   http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-199
   fantasai: Edits introduced a regression in the spec
   fantasai: Proposal in the wiki
   dbaron: I don't understand what you mean by static position here.
   dbaron: The static position only refers to abspos elements.
   dbaron: But we need this for floats as well.
   fantasai: What if we removed the word "static"?
   dbaron: That's fine.
   <dbaron> I think it should just say "position" rather than "static position"
   fantasai: So does this still solve the original issue?
   <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010May/0698.html
   dbaron: So the issue is about having this line box not exist for determining
           the baseline
   dbaron: Yes, I think this text takes care of that issue.
   glazou: Any objections to using this text? (at the end of
           http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0530.html )
   Arron: I think the text is fine if we remove 'static' just like dbaron says.
   Arron: We do mean any positioning, not just static position for abspos
          elements.
   Bert: I'm not sure it's correct. What is the position of something in a
         zero-height line box? Where is the baseline in that?
   fantasai: I imagine it would be the position of the line box.
   fantasai: We could further clarify by saying that the height of all boxes
             inside that line boxes is also zero.
   Bert: If they are zero-height, are they zero line-height?
   fantasai: yes
   Bert: Let's take the text, I'll think about it a little more, but the problem
         is with how tables work, really, which leads to these strange
         constructions.
   Bert: Was it Anton that asked if this also applied to shortened line boxes
         next to floats?
   Bert: Or is that solved in some other way?
   fantasai: Line boxes next to floats either contain content, in which case
             this section doesn't apply, or they don't contain content, in
             which case content in them moves down until it fits.
   Bert: Let's do it and see what happens. We have errata if needed.
   RESOLVED: Accept proposal at bottom of email with s/static//

   http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-203
   fantasai: I don't understand this issue.
   dbaron: I don't think I'm going to get my head into this issue within the
           duration of the telecon, certainly. It's very complicated.
   <johnjan> as far as I can tell, here's the latest:
             http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0431.html
   glazou: Then let's defer this until we have more information.
   glazou: Let's move on to other problems.

   fantasai: plinss said we are missing passes for bidi-004a
   http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/bidi-004a.htm
   dbaron: I thought there were additional changes to make to the white space
           in that test
   fantasai: I thought I made those changes
   Arron: Yes. The changes are correct wrt what we said we wanted to change
          at the last meeting.
   plinss: Opera doesn't put white space between "ccc" and "ddd"
   plinss: It does if you add a space right after 'ccc' in the test case,
           I believe.
   Arron: Opera still has the padding bug on the middle line
   ...
   Arron: IE9 passes
   fantasai: How does FF fail?
   <stearns> FF4 ends up with 5 lines
   dbaron: shrink-wrap calculation fails
   dbaron: I'm not sure if the white space change was what was intended.
           Maybe needed to drop the opposite space.
   dbaron discusses various FF bugs demonstrated by the testcase
   Arron: With that change, IE now fails
   No hope of passes.
   plinss: Need some kind of strategy for getting past this blocker.

Meeting closed.
Arron, plinss, and fantasai stay on the call to work on bidi-004a.

<arronei> Draft DoC: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2011Mar/att-0210/_CSS21_last-call.htm
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2011 21:13:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:38 GMT