W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2012

[CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions Paris F2F 2012-02-07 Tue Morning II: Fullscreen, Snapshot, Media Queries REC

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 01:08:27 +0100
Message-ID: <4F3702FB.4010507@inkedblade.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Fullscreen
----------

   RESOLVED: Propose to work on fullscreen as a joint item with
             Web Apps API

Snapshot 2012
-------------

   RESOLVED: the CSS snapshot will be published once a year, at the beginning
             of the year, and every time a new specification meets the criteria
             for being listed in the snapshot note.

Media Queries REC
-----------------

Opera and Mozilla have builds that pass the test suite, giving us 2
implementations. Remaining work before REC:
   - Wait for Opera to publish this build publicly
   - Update MQ test suite on W3C site
   - Create implementation reports


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

Present:
    Rossen Atanassov (Microsoft)
    Tab Atkins (Google)
    David Baron (Mozilla)
    Bert Bos (W3C)
    Tantek Çelik (Mozilla)
    John Daggett (Mozilla)
    fantasai Etemad (Mozilla)
    Simon Fraser (Apple)
    Sylvain Galineau (Microsoft)
    Daniel Glazman (Disruptive Innovations)
    Vincent Hardy (Adobe)
    Koji Ishii (Invited Expert)
    Håkon Wium Lie (Opera)
    Chris Lilley (W3C)
    Peter Linss (Hewlett-Packard)
    Luke Macpherson (Google)
    Alex Mogilevsky (Microsoft)
    Anton Prowse (Invited Expert)
    Florian Rivoal (Opera)
    Alan Stearns (Adobe)
    Steve Zilles (Adobe)

Observers:
    Jet Villegas (Mozilla Corporation)
    Tavmjong Bah (Inkscape)

<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/02/07-css-irc
Agenda: http://wiki.csswg.org/planning/paris-2012

Fullscreen
---------
   <dbaron> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2012Feb/0004.html
   daniel: Art is asking if we have comments / objections to Web apps working
           on this.
   chris: I think it should be in web apps.
   tantek: there are presentation aspects, right?
   daniel: yes, there are presentation side effects.
   daniel: but it is mainly an API.
   tantek: this is already in our charter. Art is asking to propose it for
           their Web apps charter. Why the extra work to put it in the web
           apps group.
   chris: Anne is willing to do it in the web apps group and he is a member
          there.
   daniel: there is, in our charter, to do full screen only for CSS, not
           in general.
   daniel: it is not limited to css.
   fantasai: then it should be a joint effort.
   daniel: yes, the css part we do, the api they do.
   chris: while we are talking about this type of cooperation, it strikes me
          that the CSS OM is that something that should be done as a joint
         effort between the two groups.

   tantek: I think we have broader dissipation in this group from different
           companies. From an early exposure to commit patent IP, this group
           is better than the Web apps group, seeing what happened with touch
           events.
   tantek: css wg is better than web apps in that way.
   tantek: so the work should be done here.
   tantek: the web apps wg does not have as many companies, so if the work
           is done in the CSS wg, we stand a better chance to get disclosures/
           exclusions sooner than later.
   tantek: touch events has been blocked by a patent from Apple.
   tantek: since they are not in the web apps working group, they could do that.
   tantek: so it is better to do this work, from an IP point of view, in the CSSWG.
   florian: what are the implications of joint work?
   chris: the union of the membership of both groups has the same disclosure
          obligations over the entire spec.
   tantek: I have no problem co-editing with Anne.

   daniel: my next question: does the group feel that the argument tantek gives
           about size and IP rules are the arguments I should present to Art?
   florian: working jointly is the option we should present.
   bert: the argument about members is not strong, because they have Apple and
         they have companies that we do not have.
   tantek: for example, Flash has a fullscreen API and Adobe is not a member
           of the Web Apps wg.
   peter: I agree with you, but if you are trying to bring everybody under the
          tent, then you may force someone out of the tent. This is a risk.
   florian: however, full screen is already in the charter. If someone in CSS
            wanted to leave because of it, they would have already left.
   tantek: but the disclosure requirements happen at FPWD time.
   daniel: so we will propose for a joint effort?
   ACTION: daniel to answer Art about joint work between CSS and Web Apps WG
           on fullscreen CSS and APIs.

Schedule for Snapshot 2012
--------------------------

   peter: end or start of the year?
   peter: last time we discussed it, we said we would do a snapshot every year.
   bert: is that what worked before 2012 or starting 2012?
   chris: if you publish at the end of 2012, then people think they are dealing
          with an old spec.
   fantasai: we can publish at any point, but the question, is, do we expect to
             add things to the snapshot (and have test suite).
   fantasai: I think we are just going to republish with a new date.
   dbaron: 2d transform could be there.
   tab: images will have a test suite.
   fantasai: we also need at least an implementation that passes most of the
             testsuite and failures understood.
   chris: this is still a prediction: we expect things to get out of CR soon.
   fantasai: yes, e.g., MQ made it because we understood the failures and there
             was a test suite and implementation.
   chris: if the point is to publish one every year, then we would sometimes
          republish the same thing.
   peter: we should publish at least once a year. We may publish several times
         a year.
   peter: it is just a note about the current state of the world and we update
         as necessary but at least once a year.
   steve: we need to indicate some level of stability, but publishing a new
         number if there is no changes is not useful.
   peter: i think there is a benefit.
   peter: if there isn't one that is current, which one do you look at?
   steve: the most recent one.
   peter: this is the problem with open source projects. If something is not
          updated, you do not know if this is because people did not publish
         the update or because nothing is happening. This has value.
   steve: ok, understood.
   peter: so I would like to publish snapshot 2012 asap and we will republish
          immediately if new things are eligible.
   bert: I think that is too often.
   bert: publishing often seems unstable.
   chris: we need to communicate that the stability state has changed.
   bert: ... people can wait 6 months.
   chris: we give people a short spec. that says what is stable.
   peter: the snapshot is a note, it is easy to publish. It is for communication.
   tantek: I think we should update the snapshot every time a spec. goes to CR.
   several: that is not the criteria, the criteria is that the spec is almost
            ready to exit CR.
   steve: once a year is fine.
   tantek: I propose to publish at the begining of the year.
   several: yes.
   RESOLVED: the CSS snapshot will be published once a year, at the beginning
             of the year, and every time a new specification meets the criteria
             for being listed in the snapshot note.
   ACTION: Fantasai to publish snapshot 2012 ASAP
   <trackbot> Created ACTION-429

Media Queries REC
------------------

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2012Jan/0001.html
   fantasai: we need an implementation report.
   florian: what is the status of the test suite?
   peter: it was being reworked.
   fantasai: that does not make the tests invalid.
   chris: this is a case of what you use for generating the report.
   (history of the test suite and who contributed).
   peter: the test suite has sufficient coverage of the spec?
   <dbaron> http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/MediaQueries/20100726/
   <ChrisL> http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/MediaQueries/20100726/
   dbaron: I think we need to publish a new snapshot of the test suite.
   ACTION: fantasai to publish a new snapshot of the MQ test suite.
   <trackbot> Created ACTION-430
   <plinss> MQ test suite source:
     http://hg.csswg.org/test/file/tip/contributors/anne/submitted/mediaqueries

   daniel: implementation reports by?
   Mozilla, Opera
   ACTION: dbaron to provide an implementation report for the MQ test suite.
   <trackbot> Created ACTION-431
   ACTION: florian to provide an implementation report for the MQ test suite.
   <trackbot> Created ACTION-432
   <ChrisL> testing Opera.next Version
   <ChrisL> 12.00 alpha
   <ChrisL> Build
   <ChrisL> 1272
   <ChrisL> Passed: 254
   <ChrisL> Failed: 107
   ACTION: smfr to provide an implementation report for the MQ test suite.
   <trackbot> Created ACTION-433
   Build of Opera that passes MQ is not public yet, so will need to wait for it.
Received on Sunday, 12 February 2012 00:08:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:50 GMT