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

[CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions Telecon 2011-11-23

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:18:09 -0800
Message-ID: <4ED416B1.7070902@inkedblade.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Summary:

   - Briefly discussed multicol spanner issue again.

   - Reviewed CSS3 Speech LC comments:
       - RESOLVED: Move system cues to the next version
       - RESOLVED: keep the preserve value of voice-family
       - RESOLVED: keep 'voice-duration'
       - RESOLVED: Not renaming voice-stress to voice-emphasis
       - RESOLVED: Comment set from Robert Brown closed as non-issues.

   - RESOLVED: Ask tab to include list of issues provided by Håkon
               http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Nov/0449.html
               to official list of issues and publish next week

   - RESOLVED: move min(), max() to level 4

   - Discussed splitting CSS3 Text into Level 3 and Level 4, see
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Nov/0395.html

   - Discussed glazou's proposal to unprefix @keyframes

   - Discussed inconsistencies in css3-content

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

Present:
   César Acebal
   David Baron
   Kimberly Blessing
   Bert Bos
   Elika Etemad
   Sylvain Galineau
   Daniel Glazman
   Koji Ishii
   Håkon Wium Lie
   Chris Lilley
   Peter Linss
   Divya Manian
   Anton Prowse
   Florian Rivoal
   Alan Stearns
   Daniel Weck
   Steve Zilles

Regrets: rossen, johnjansen, vhardy, edward o'connor, bradk

<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/23-css-irc

Scribe: divya

Multi-col spanning margins
--------------------------

   <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2011OctDec/0138.html
   florian: we have 3 proposed behavior when you have two multicol spanners
            next to each other. microsoft implement b, opera implement c,
            current spec seems to describe c, not sure which to decide on.
   fantasai: kimberly and I took an action item to write a blog post about
             this. We are planning to do that next week.
   fantasai: are we planning to resolve on this this week instead?
   florian: I am not sure if it would give us meaningful feedback.
   florian: I don't think we should spend a long time on that.
   sylvaing: I don't think one more week would make a difference.
   glazou: probably good to defer to next week if we don't have right people in the call.
   glazou: is it okay for you florian and howcome to discuss this next week?
   fantasai: will write blogpost next week.
   glazou: will it happen before next call?
   fantasai: probably not.
   sylvaing: we should put a date to resolve it.
   sylvaing: it is a tricky decision. so it is fine to set a date to resolve it.
   glazou: we resolve in 2 weeks time

Speech
------

   <danielweck> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css3-speech
   glazou: max 20 mins for this.
   danielweck: not got enough feedback to determine our position on this.
               leave it another week and make decision next week on this issue.
   <glazou> issue 1 deferred
   issue 2, 3 is verified with wg consensus
   danielweck: issue 4 to 10, raised by gregory, some issues have been
               accepted, some are invalid. I think we can close them properly.
               waiting for verification of commenters report.
   glazou: you can put in your disposition of comments that the original
           commenter is unavailable at this time to verify this issue.
   danielweck: issue 11, 12, 13, 14 closed with wg consensus verified

   danielweck: 15 I need wg consensus.
   danielweck: introducing new feature, … something similar to fonts.
   danielweck: lets reject that.
   ChrisL: is that instead of … or in addition to.
   danielweck: do we have a WG resolution on it?
   RESOLVED: Move system cues to the next version

   danielweck: issue 16, agreement from commenter, missing WG approval.
   danielweck: about voice-family preserved value.
   fantasai: commenter asked to drop, but agreed to danielweck's proposal
             to keep
   RESOLVED: keep the preserve value

   danielweck: issue 17 forcing boundaries marked it as closed invalid
   RESOLVED: No change

   danielweck: issue 18: renaming voice-stress to voice-emphasis
   danielweck: the commenters agree not to renaming it. do we have wg
               approval for not renaming it
   ChrisL: what is their argument for renaming it?
   glazou: stress seems to imply anger
   danielweck: I don't think it is a major issue.
   <ChrisL> ok so its the technical meaning of stress as opposed to the
            normal social meaning
   glazou: I have no objection myself.
   howcome: we shouldnt rename things for fun.
   <ChrisL> I think its better to keep the terms of art from the technical
            community
   ChrisL: if speech people use the term stress in a particular way we
           should use it the same way.
   RESOLVED: retained voice-stress

   danielweck: issue 19: robert approved our proposal.
   danielweck: I want to make sure he is okay with that.
   danielweck: I take that as an agreement with our consensus
   RESOLVED: no objection

   danielweck: issue 20: marked as invalid as it is a remark about at-risk
               properties.
   danielweck: they would like to keep voice-balance unlike voice-duration.
               they agree in principle on the role of at-risk marker for
               this property
   * Bert : the e-mail from Robert Brown is in my moderator queue, will forward
   <danielweck> Bert: okay, great.
   danielweck: issue 1 is possibly contentious and possibly renaming
               voice-stress to emphasis.
   danielweck: we should have this sorted by end of year and move to CR
   <ChrisL> good

Publishing CSS3 Lists
---------------------

   fantasai: good to resolve the publish
   howcome: I posted several issues that haven't been put in.
   howcome: noting these issues to be fixed before publications
   howcome: I have asked for these issues to be added for months and these
            doesn't happen.
   glazou: if these issues are noted listed then is it okay for you to publish
   howcome: yes
   <howcome> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Nov/0449.html
   fantasai: the main issue seems to be several of them seem to be same
             issue with different wording
   howcome: the main thing is I am worried about adding a long list of
            pre-defined list without us having discussed what criteria
            is used for adding those.
   howcome: I think we should add short-cut syntax which is being
            discussed on www-style
   howcome: I think issues should be written in a non-personal way.
   howcome: I propose we ask tab to add issue then we resolve to publish
            in a week
   ChrisL: it couldn't be published before next week anyway
   howcome: is there any news on publication of drafts we resolved last week?
   Bert: It's thanksgiving again.
   glazou: we release them next week
   RESOLVED: Ask tab to include list of issues provided by Howcome
             ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Nov/0449.html )
             to official list of issues and publish next week

Values and Units
----------------

   <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Nov/0333.html
   glazou: requests to move from level3 to level 4, min and max
   dbaron: I am fine with moving it to level4
   fantasai: is the problem just mixing % and length?
   dbaron: mainly yes.
   fantasai: could we just forbid that?
   dbaron: it would be confusing and a good bit of work.
   glazou: it would be a large bit of that feature I think.
   RESOLVED: move min, max to level 4

Splitting CSS3 Text
-------------------

   <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Nov/0395.html
   fantasai: discussed splitting text to move it to CR
   fantasai: florian: has commented but nobody else
   SteveZ: I haven't seen resolution of florian's issue.
   <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Nov/0420.html
   Deferred discussion for later.

CSS2.1
------
   'inherit' keyword
   ??: I would like to review it but I havent had time yet.
   Discussion deferred.
   * fantasai agrees with Bert's edits to CSS2.1, in preference to Tab's.
     Much clearer.
   * dbaron wonders which edits to CSS 2.1 these are
   <fantasai> http://www.w3.org/Style/css2-updates/REC-CSS2-20110607-errata.html

CSS3 Animations
---------------

   glazou: CSS3 animations. would like to drop prefix on @keyframes at rule
   <ChrisL> http://www.glazman.org/weblog/dotclear/index.php?post/2011/11/23/Some-thoughts-about-editing-CSS-3-Animations
   glazou: only speaking of parsing the @keyframes at rule
   glazou: currently it is a prefixed so its a huge burden
   sylvaing: we are talking with unprefixing but not others.
   sylvaing: how do we effectively say this is the issue in CR and not the
             other things in the stack
   <dbaron> (or maybe that was someone else... sorry?)
   florian: why do you think that particular bit helps a lot of people and
            not the rest.
   glazou: an at rule is hard to duplicate.
   glazou: you need to change the prefixes inside the keyframes too
   sylvaing: it is such a pain to multiple the @ rules we write js to repeat
             them. it is painful
   florian: I support the move as well but I am not sure how we can change.

   Stevez: how can you test this is consistently done
   Stevez: I am confused how to test this instead of the others.
   <oyvind> I don't think that part of the spec is good enough for CR but
            unprefixing is another matter
   sylvaing: there are basic issues about the content of the rules, what
             do you do with the value, it is kind of awkward to just accomodate
             to that.
   <oyvind> (or maybe it is fine for CR, but it has a lot of unaddressed
            issues w.r.t. edge cases and error handling)
   florian: for the record I am for removing prefixes, but not comfortable
            removing prefixes on that while simultaneously keeping on the rest.
   glazou: lack in the OM for keyframes. the OM for keyframes would allow
           defined rule for a key. not allow to retrieve key for keyframes.
   glazou: new readonly attribute to retrieve list of keys
   glazou:  probably authors rely on JS
   glazou:  the key would be a string.

CSS3 Content
------------

   florian: I had asked for an extra item. can we talk a bit about that?
   florian: the content property in css 2.1 allows you to add images, which
            are added as a child of the elements
   florian: css3 content spec is confusingly worded.
   florian: if you use same syntax as css 2.1 as the behaviour would be same.
   florian:  if you use url() you would get replaced content.
   florian: I am confused by 1st sentence of section 8 replaced content.
   florian: it seem incompatible with what css2.1 and css3 says.
   dbaron: I think it is a contradition, and I proposed a rewording on the list.
   florian: I thought the discussion had died, so I brought it to the telecon.
   florian: but it came back to life.
   dbaron: I would be okay concluding something
   florian: I don't think anyone implements the switch at the moment, so we
            won't be breaking anything.
   dbaron: I think the open question is whether we are going to do fallback
           mechanism within value syntax, we won't want a fallback mechanism
           inside the property syntax
   fantasai: we are doing fallback in value syntax only for a given type
             of content.
   fantasai: e.g. if you are a visual browser, here is a picture, if you are
             a text-only browser, here is some text.
   florian: I don't think you can do what you just said the way it is
            currently specced
   florian: sorry, what you said is probably correct.
   florian: I don't think we should go into full discussion on what values
            should be accepted by content property.
   florian: we should discuss this on the list then.
   glazou: anything else?

glazou: happy thanksgiving!
Meeting closed.
Received on Monday, 28 November 2011 23:18:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:46 GMT