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

[CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2011-03-30

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:27:14 -0700
Message-ID: <4D938412.3070704@inkedblade.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Summary:

   - Discussed location of F2F. Most people seem to be OK with Kyoto/Osaka,
     but we need a meeting room June 2-4.

   - RESOLVED: Updated proposal accepted for CSS2.1 Issue 203.
               http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-203
               http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0567.html

   - CSS2.1 Issue 179 is closed with Bert's latest edits and Anton's approval.

   - RESOLVED: For CSS2.1 Issue 192 replace first problematic sentence with
               "If a shortened line box is too small to contain any content,
                then the line box is shifted downward (and its width recomputed)
                until either some content fits or there are no more floats present."
               and change "first available line" to "same line" in second sentence.
               http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-192

   - RESOLVED: Not dropping :first-line :first-letter from CSS2.1.
               It may be underdefined, but it's in CSS1 and CSS3 and we have a usable
               level of interop demonstrated in the test suite, so dropping it here
               doesn't gain us anything.

   - RESOLVED: Advance CSS2.1 to PR.

   - Plan for errata is to maintain errata list after REC and occasionally publish
     updated RECs via PER phase.

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

Present:

   David Baron
   Bert Bos
   Cathy Chan
   John Daggett
   Brady Duga
   Arron Eicholz
   Elika Etemad
   Simon Fraser
   Sylvain Galineau
   Daniel Glazman
   Arno Gourdol
   Koji Ishii
   John Jansen
   Peter Linss
   Alex Mogilevsky
   Anton Prowse
   Edward O'Connor
   Alan Stearns
   Steve Zilles

<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/03/30-css-irc
ScribeNick: fantasai

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

   plinss: Anything to add to agenda?
   glazou: We need to collect testimonials for CSS2.1
   glazou: Each member should ping their AC rep about that
   smfr: What's a testimonial?
   glazou: It's just one paragraph about how Apple is happy about the release
           of CSS2.1 and it's going to change the world and their strategy, etc.

F2F meeting
-----------

   plinss: got an email from Koji this morning
   koji: That's all the info I have.
   koji: If there are many concerns, we can look for locations in Osaka area
         which is safer
   plinss: Everyone read the email?
   glazou: Personally I prefer avoiding Japan at this time.
   jdaggett: Could you explain?
   glazou: First I have a veto from my family.
   glazou: Second, flights are chaotic at this time. E.g. Air France is
           diverting flights to Tokyo
   jdaggett: they're diverted to Osaka, though
   glazou: Lastly, we need to decide asap, otherwise my flight will be
           too expensive
   jdaggett: I have a feeling prices won't be going up
   glazou: I checked prices recently, and they're more expensive than they
           used to be
   glazou: at least from France
   sylvaing: There are a lot of people attending those meetings.
   sylvaing: I don't think it's fair to change the meeting because it will
             be more expensive for one person.
   sylvaing: We cannot predict airline prices, especially for Japan at this
             time.
   sylvaing: I don't understand why we need to make this decision today.
   jdaggett: I don't understand urgency. Sure better to decide quickly as
             possible, but not convinced it needs to be today.
   glazou: Because we're almost 60 days before the trip
   sylvaing: I always book my trips 30 days before
   glazou: You have a rich company behind you
   dbaron: Flight prices often go /down/ between 8wks and 4 wks. (Not always.)
   <Bert> (I'd be OK with Osaka or Kyoto. Offer of hosting at W3C/ERCIM in
           France also still stands. But please decide soon.)
   jdaggett: I would be interested in hearing from people who were originally
             coming to Japan and are now concerned.
   glazou: I am
   Bert: Me too. I'm concerned about Tokyo. Could go to Osaka or Kyoto.
   Steve: I'm concerned because I expected things to get better over this
          last week, and in fact they've gotten worse.
   Steve: So I haven't seen things getting better.
   sylvaing: Have you heard from the news, or from people actually there?
   sylvaing: I hear one thing from the news, but another from the people I
             know there.
   jdaggett: The actual radiation numbers are going down around the plant.
   jdaggett: No predictor of what could happen tomorrow, but there isn't
             actually a lot of stuff that's going right now that is an
             immediate concern for people living in Tokyo.
   jdaggett: I'd be concerned if I was living near the plant.
   jdaggett: But Tokyo is far enough away
   kojiishi: Not sure appropriate comparison, but Chernobyl escape zone was
             100km, and Tokyo is more than 250km
   kojiishi: If you take Osaka, you have 500km more distance
   sylvaing: I'm fine with Tokyo, I'm fine with Osaka, I'm fine with Japan
   sylvaing: I would like it if we could find a way to keep that workshop
             going for our Japanese friends to attend
   sylvaing: So if not in Japan, then somewhere nearby
   sylvaing: But I'm fine with Japan.
   <alexmog> vladivostok?
   <bradk> http://news.discovery.com/earth/japan-nuclear-reactors-worst-case-110329.html
   sylvaing: Wrt prices, I think the airfare might go up, but we're staying
             for awhile and hotel prices are likely to be very low.
   sylvaing cites case of his last trip
   jdaggett: But we need to outline a path to making a decision.
   jdaggett: i"m not comfortable with the idea of just deciding today
   jdaggett: But I think we need to set a scope for when the venue is defined
   jdaggett: Unfortunately Tab is not on call today
   jdaggett: And he was sponsor of venue
   jdaggett: Not sure from Koji's message that we have a solid meeting place
             there
   jdaggett: Google just has a small sales office in Osaka
   SteveZ: My concern is whether we have a sponsor if we have to rent.
   jdaggett: Kyoto would be a better place, there's much better accommodation
             etc.
   <kojiishi> http://www.consortium.or.jp/contents_detail.php?frmId=1608
   kojiishi: Current candidate is in Kyoto
   kojiishi: This is a candidate for the forum. Unfortunately the room is not
             available for June 4th, so we're looking for other places for
             the F2F
   kojiishi: Kyoto and Osaka are very close. Possible to have workshop in
             one place and meeting in the other without changing hotels.
   jdaggett: Japan has two electrical grids, and Osaka is in a different one
             from Tokyo
   jdaggett: The blackouts don't apply to Osaka
   sylvaing: We should check with Tab about hosting situation
   fantasai: We could decide on Japan, and then figure out the venue later.
             Then people can book their flights now, and find their hotels later
   Steve: As long as someone is dedicated to sponsoring the venue, in case it
          costs something, then we're ok
   kojiishi: Wrt rental offices, ICT group in Japan is willing to pay for that.
   Steve: Think we should spend 2 weeks to settle on the venue
   plinss: So, sounds like most people are ok with Osaka/Kyoto aside from glazou
   plinss: I think 2 weeks is reasonable
   plinss: Meanwhile try to nail down a venue
   plinss: make a final call then
-jdaggett

CSS2.1
------

   plinss: Let's try to get this nailed down today.
   <plinss> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2011Mar/att-0238/last-call.htm
   <plinss> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-203
   Bert: I agree with the proposal
   <plinss> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0567.html
   Arron: fantasai and I spent a lot of time looking over with one of our
          developers here, and we all agree it's a viable solution here
   Arron: Text that was there previously seemed to be there for consistency
          with 8.3.1, and it just causes confusion in this section because
          it doesn't match exactly.
   Arron: So removing that line about bottom border doesn't create a problem,
          and makes spec more consistent with implementations--and with what
          we wwant in the end, really
   dbaron: That was to prevent margins below the bottom of the element from
           influencing the hypothetical position
   fantasai: The rules in 8.3.1 introduce the bottom border in some cases,
             such as the one you're concerned about. Just not in all, so
             saying that here is inconsistent with 8.3.1
   RESOLVED: proposal accepted

   <plinss> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-179
   johnjan: We were confused and just wanted to make sure it was in fact closed
   plinss: We have an objection here
   <dbaron> the second objection URL there belongs on issue 192
   ?: Bert responded after that message with further edits
+Anton Prowse
   Anton: What came up on IRC, the first URL on objection is the latest that
          was on the mailing list about this
   Anton summarizes issue.
   fantasai: I think Bert just edited that.
   <dbaron> we're looking at http://www.w3.org/Style/css2-updates/css2/visuren.html#anonymous-block-level ?
   Anton: In the copy I'm looking at it still says the same thing.
   Bert: I don't think you can see the actual editor's draft.
   "The P element contains a chunk (C1) of anonymous text followed by a
    block-level element followed by another chunk (C2) of anonymous text.
    The resulting boxes would be a block box representing the BODY,
    containing an anonymous block box around C1, the SPAN block box, and
    another anonymous block box around C2."
   Anton: That looks right ot me
   <glazou> YAY :-)
   <glazou> GREEN

   <plinss> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-192
   <plinss> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0402.html
   dbaron: I sent a response email based on the WG discussion there, and no
           longer even agreed with that discussion while I was writing things
           up. And now I've forgotten it all anyway.
   fantasai: Didn't Bert have some proposed changes for this?
   Bert's message:
     Anton's suggestions in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0402.html
     are relative to text that already changed a bit. Relative to the current
     text, I think he means the following two changes in 9.5 (Floats). Replace

       > If a shortened line box is too small to contain any content
       > after the float, then that content is shifted downward until
       > either it fits or there are no more floats present. Any
       > content in the current line before a floated box is reflowed
       > in the first available line on the other side of the float.

     by:

       | If a shortened line box is too small to contain any content
       | after the float without overflowing its containing block,
       | then that content is shifted downward until
       | either it fits or there are no more floats present. Any
       | content in the current line before a floated box is reflowed
       | in the same line on the other side of the float.

     i.e., add "without overflowing its containing block" and replace
     "first available" by "same."

     He further noticed a browser bug that could have been avoided by a
     better description (viz., that several browsers forget to ignore
     the last space before a float, and thus conclude that a float doesn't
     fit, although it actually does). But he is not asking for a rewrite
     of level 2, just that we do better in level 3.

     I'm OK with those changes. They may of may not make things easier to
     understand, but as far as I can see they don't change what the spec
     is trying to say.
   dbaron: Doesn't this introduce an inconsistency between start and end floats
   fantasai: So we should say "line box" instead of "containing block"
   Anton describes an RTL case
   Anton: You can't have inline content overflowing the line box, it gets bigger
   dbaron: No, the line box edges are determined by the containing block /
           float intrusions.
   Anton: Ok, if that's true, then for sure we should talk about overflowing
          the line box htere.
   dbaron: I want to find the context here. All three times we've discussed
           this I've missed the context
   dbaron: What section is this in?
   Anton: We want "if the content fits", not "it fits"...
   Anton: As far as I understand is, you have your stack of line boxes, you
          might have floats present.
   Anton: You're trying to flow the inline boxes into the line box
   Anton: You only shift things if you can't fit any piece of that content
          next to the float
   Anton: The one characteristic that's different btw normal line box and
          the shortened line box is that content can't overflow it
   Anton: If it would, it moves downward
   dbaron: I think your original proposal to delete "further" is correct --
           it's about whether *any* content fits in the shortened line box.
   dbaron: If content before the float doesn't fit, then the float positioning
           rules kick in to move the float.
   <dbaron> If a shortened line box is too small to contain any content,
            then the line box is shifted downward until either some content
            fits or there are no more floats present.
   Anton: You used rules 6-8 to explain this, [...]
   Anton: You can never have a previous box that is below the top of the float
   Anton: Previous content absolutely has to stay in the same line box. It
          might get shifted to the other side of the float, but never moves
          down.
   dbaron points to his proposal in IRC
   Anton: That looks perfect.
   Bert: I don't see any difference between any of these variants
   dbaron: Difference with what I typed is it has fewere occurances of "it",
           some of those "it"s were unclear. So I expanded all of them.
   Anton: Other difference is the original text says "first available box"
   Anton: My impression was that Bert's original concept of line boxes was
          you had a line box grid, a stack of perfectly stacked line boxes
          inside the containing block.
   Anton: While that's a nice concept, it's not consistent with the rest of
          the spec, and certainly not with implementations
   Anton: It's not filling content into a lined notepad
   Anton: The line boxes can be shifted themselves
   Anton: leaving a gap
   Anton: So rather than a stack of empty line boxes, you have a gap
   Anton: "first available" made sense in the original vision, but not anymore.
   Anton: (Wasn't even correct in original case, because content before the
          float wouldn't get flowed into multiple line boxes anyway.)
   Bert: Sounds right. But we still have to decide which version of the text
         to adopt
   Anton: What dbaron proposed on IRC looks correct.
   Steve: That implies the shortned lined box is moved down, but when it moves
          down it's no longer shortened necessarily
   <Bert> (The line box not just moves down, it also gets wider...)
   <dbaron> If a shortened line box is too small to contain any content,
            then the line box is shifted downward (and its width recomputed)
            until either some content fits or there are no more floats present.
   dbaron: I added another proposal in IRC.
   Anton: works for me. felt it was implicit, but equally correct what dbaron
          wrote there
   plinss: Any objections?
   RESOLVED: dbaron's latest proposal accepted
   dbaron: Did we resolve all the bits of the issue email?
   Anton: We've solved both parts in one sentence.
   dbaron and Anton discuss "first available"
   Bert: "first available" is in the next sentence
   dbaron: So we've agreed to replace 2 sentences with 1?
   Anton double-checks
   Anton: I think dbaron's proposal combines those two sentences.
   Anton: What it misses is the part about content before the float moving to
          the other side of the float
   dbaron: well, i was only trying to replace the first, hadn't gotten to the
           second
   Anton: If we were going to replace the second sentence...
   <dbaron> Issue 2 is the first sentence and Issue 3 is the second sentence
   dbaron: do you want to replace 'first available line' to 'same line'?
   Anton: Yes, that makes sense there.
   plinss: Other thoughts on that change?
   Bert: Fine with that too
   RESOLVED: Second proposal also accepted
   <oyvind> ("the other side" in the float issue still doesn't make sense...)
   <antonp> @oyvind: i agree for rtl, but that was rejected by the WG
   <antonp> sorry, i mean for right floats in ltr
   <dbaron> oyvind, It really only makes sense for floats on the start-side, I think.
   <oyvind> right

   plinss: A couple more items left. If people can stay, would be nice to get
           publication out today
   sylvaing: I can stay. When do you need testimonials?
   Bert: If we are lucky, then first available date we can issue them is May
         31st
   Bert: So before May 31st
   Bert: a few days before that

   <Bert> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0637.html
   Bert: I propose we don't change anything now.
   Bert summarizes the email
   dbaron and Bert discuss something that they thought was defined but
     apparently isn't
   dbaron: ok, let's just leave it
   Bert: Description of line-height property ...
   dbaron: Used doesn't mean it changes the answer :-)

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0623.html
   fantasai: Those edits seem correct to me

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0277.html
   fantasai: Issue about why aren't we dropping :first-line and :first-letter
   fantasai: I think our answer is that it's in CSS1 and CSS3, so leaving it
             out of CSS2.1 doesn't make sense.
   dbaron: Although I wish we used text from an earlier draft of Selectors
   Arron: We have a good enough area of interop here, based on testcases.
   RESOLVED: Not dropping :first-line :first-letter from CSS2.1.
   dbaron would like to drop it, but not going there right now.

   Bert: we need an updated disposition of comments
   Arron: Already have it ready
   Bert: Implementation reports
   plinss: Have it, just need to write it up formally.
   Bert: Ok, then I have to update draft with what we decided today.
   plinss: I propose advancing 2.1 to PR
   plinss: Any objections?
   RESOLVED: Advance CSS2.1 to PR.

   Anton: What's the plan for errata?
   Anton: Lots of issues that need errata'ing
   Anton: including contradictions in margin collapsing etc.
   plinss: Don't have a formal timeline yet
   plinss: There will always be issues, since it's such a long spec
   dbaron: Once we're at REC, it's easier to get to REC again. PER combines
           LC and PR
   dbaron: and then we can publish an updated REC
   Bert: Errata can be published any time. We can update the errata list easily.

Meeting closed.
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2011 19:27:54 GMT

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