- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 21:42:04 -0700
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Summary:
- RESOLVED: John's proposal to resolve the issue is accepted, exact wording
to be settled on list
- RESOLVED: Alignment properties to be named
align-self / align-content / align-items
justify-self / justify-content / justify-items
- RESOLVED: use space-between/space-around instead of justify/distribute
- RESOLVED: rename flex-order to order
====== Full minutes below ======
Present:
Glenn Adams
Rossen Atanassov
Tab Atkins
Phil Cupp
David Baron
Ryan Betts
Bert Bos
John Daggett
Elika Etemad
Simon Fraser
Sylvain Galineau
Daniel Glazman
John Jansen
Brad Kemper
Peter Linss
Edward O'Connor
Anton Prowse
Florian Rivoal
<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/23-css-irc
Scribe: sylvaing
glazou: other agenda items?
font-family syntax and reserved keywords
----------------------------------------
<jdaggett> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/0630.html
<jdaggett> font-family: [[<family-name> | <generic-family>]
[, <family-name>| <generic-family>]* ] | inherit
<jdaggett> <family-name> == [ <string> | ident+ ]
<jdaggett> <generic-family> == [ sans-serif | serif | cursive | fantasy | monospace ]
jdaggett: there is a slight ambiguity in the current grammar for
font-family names
jdaggett: in the current grammar reserved keywords can be matched either
as keywords or a sequence of identifiers
<jdaggett> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/fonts.html#font-family-prop
jdaggett: in the paragraph linked above, keywords are required to be
quoted to match the family name type
jdaggett: so if you have an unquoted font name that includes inherit or
initial it would have to be dropped
jdaggett: there is some confusion across browsers. foo inherit can be
valid while inherit foo might not be (or vice-versa)
jdaggett: I propose we tweak the grammar and change the prose
jdaggett: we should allow names like 'inherit foo' but inherit, foo
would be invalid
florian: I haven't looked at your grammar change but I'm comfortable
allowing names such as 'inherit foo'
tabatkins: I'm ok with that as well
jdaggett: anyone else has objections?
jdaggett: one change involves fixing the syntax
jdaggett: second change is a rewording
jdaggett: both for the CSS2.1 errata
<jdaggett> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/0630.html
(both changes described in the post linked above)
some discussion of wording
<fantasai> s/are not allowed to/do not/
<fantasai> otherwise, it's ok
<bradk> reserved keyword if separated by comma, not if separated with
space. Unless quoted.
<Bert> (I proposed a note as an alternative to jdaggett's text, maybe
that addresses Anton's concern?)
<glazou> Bert: please copy here ?
<Bert> (My proposed note: "Note that 'font-family: Times, inherit' is
therefore an invalid declaration, because 'inherit' in that
position can neither be a valid keyword nor a valid font family
name.")
jdaggett: this is not the best language. I'm only trying to make the
most important change i.e. identify initial, inherit and
default as not being magic family names
dbaron: I just realized we want unquoted default inherit and initial
to not match <family-name>
dbaron: but I'm not sure the proposed language says that
glazou: are folks ok with the change, modulo final language?
RESOLVED: John's proposal to resolve the issue is accepted, exact wording
to be settled on list
ACTION jdaggett to finalize errata language
<trackbot> Created ACTION-474
<jdaggett> proposed wording for CSS 2.1 errata related to unquoted font family names:
<jdaggett> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/0852.html
Flexbox
-------
<fantasai> http://wiki.csswg.org/topics
<glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/topics?datasrt=&dataflt[]=spec%3Dcss3-flexbox
tabatkins: we must resolve naming issues first so as to freeze the API
<fantasai> http://wiki.csswg.org/topics/alignment-names
tabatkins: first renaming alignment properties to generic names
tabatkins: this derives from fantasai's css3-align proposal
tabatkins: I'm ok with that
fantasai: we already have a resolution on this, just need to settle on
exact the names
tabatkins: let the bikeshedding begin
fantasai: do we prefer justify-items or justify-default?
fantasai: a lot of people thought default was really vague so let's drop it
szilles: what does items mean?
<dbaron> I actually like default-*
tabatkins: it is the default alignment for flex items
szilles: so why is default a bad choice?
tabatkins: it's not clear what is being defaulted
* sylvaing thinks justify-all-the-things would be fine
pcupp: in grid layout we operate on items just like flexbox does on
flexbox items
...
pcupp: I don't see the use case for having the item-alignment property,
why not style the elements directly
Tab: anonymous items, and it's just easier
pcupp: Anonymous content seems more of an error case than something
intentional
<dbaron> Was there a reason "child" wasn't considered as an alternative
to "item" or "default"?
<fantasai> dbaron, grid items it's not the child always
glazou: any objection?
RESOLVED: eliminate default as a naming option
More discussion of various alignment choices.
Straw poll...
Set 1: Box/Content/Default
+--------X----------------Y------
A | box-justify box-align
B | content-justify content-align
C | default-justify default-align
Set 2: Self/Content/Item
+--------X----------------Y------
A | self-justify self-align
B | content-justify content-align
C | item-justify item-align
Set 3: Outside/Inside/Items
+--------X----------------Y------
A | justify-outside align-outside
B | justify-inside align-inside
C | justify-items align-items
Set 4: Self/Content/Items Inversion
+--------X----------------Y------
A | justify-self align-self
B | justify-content align-content
C | justify-items align-items
Set 5: Self/Content/Items Inline/Stack
+--------X----------------Y------
A | align-self-inline align-self-stack
B | align-content-inline align-content-stack
C | align-items-inline align-items-stack
plinss: abstain
glenn: 2
glazou: abstain
sylvaing: abstain
antonp: 2,4
jdaggett: abstain
florian: 5
rossen: 4
rbetts: abstain
johnjansen: 4
arronei: 4
bradk: 5
tabatkins: 4,2
smfr: 4 (don't like term 'stack')
dbaron: my preference order is 2 [big gap here] 4 3 5
szilles: 2 or 4. do not like 5
bert: abstain
<bradk> I don't like "justify" to mean "align x"
fantasai: my favorite is 4. I'm OK with anything that is not 1
hober: abstain
RESOLVED: option 4
pcupp: and the intent is to apply those names to grid as well
tabatkins: yes
fantasai: that was our resolution as the f2f
<TabAtkins_> http://wiki.csswg.org/topics/justification-keywords
tabatkins: for flex-pack properties there are two values that mean
'spread the items out'
tabatkins: in one case the items at either end are flush, in the
other they're evenly distributed in the container
tabatkins: justify for flushing, distribute for even spacing
glazou: why don't we use the names you have there?
glazou: edges-flush and equal-margins
glazou: that's readable
<sylvaing> +1 to glazou
<rbetts> +1 to glazou
fantasai: my concern is they make no sense when you don't already
have the context "we're spacing things out"
antonp: is there any reason why equal spacing is not part of flexbox
fantasai: no one asked for it
inside-flush?
szilles: distribute-items/distribute-space?
szilles: based on ruby align
glazou: no-margins?
<fantasai> justify-content: no-margins ???? Does not make sense.
szilles: distribute-space maps to equal-margins
* bradk thinks that 'justify' should be a value that means what it does
in 'text-align'. Confusing to have it as alignment property name.
tabatkins: my objection is that this really aligns margin boxes i.e. it
distributes space between the margins
* antonp likes szilles' way of looking at it
fill/distribute?
<Rossen> justify-content: between | spread
florian: if we can't agree on anything better than what's there, let's keep it
rossen: +1
dbaron: I think it's reasonable to give long names to those that add
space at the edges since it's something we haven't had before
tabatkins: it's a common usage pattern done with margins so far
<fantasai> distribute-between | distribute-around
<fantasai> ?
glazou: this is difficult to straw-poll because we have discussed more
proposals than what's on the wiki
szilles: can we straw poll between 0 or something new?
fantasai: how about distribute-between/distribute-around?
<fantasai> space-between | space-around
<Rossen> Like!
dbaron: I'm confused as to whether you're trying to assign 2 or 3 names
<rbetts> makes sense to me
tabatkins: only two, we don't include the full space on each side scenario
<SteveZ> +1 for space-between and space-around
<fantasai> space-between | space-around | space-evenly
glazou: straw poll between option 0 and space-around/space-between
plinss: abstain
glazou: 0
sylvaing: 0
antonp: 1
jdaggett: abstain
glenn: 0
florian: abstain
arronei: abstain
fantasai: 1
rossen: 0 then 1
johnjansen: 0
tabatkins: 1
dbaron: abstain (though I might prefer splitting the difference, justify/space-?)
bradk: 0
szilles: 1
bert: 1
rbetts: 1
hober: abstain
RESOLVED: use space-between/space-around instead of justify/distribute
<fantasai> http://wiki.csswg.org/topics/css3-flexbox-rename-flex-order
tabatkins: next, renaming the flex-order property
tabatkins: grid layout's auto placement is similar to flexbox's algorithm
so we think there should be a common property: display-order
fantasai: also, this property has nothing to do with flexing
dbaron: this may be a bit confusing given the display property and
display-inside/display-outside
dbaron: box-order?
szilles: this reorder the items so item-order?
bradk: just order!
dbaron: item-order bad since we just made "item" something that applies
to children rather than self
szilles: I'm concerned about box-order if this property is to apply to
region flows
rossen: when you have multiple boxes for elements, do all the boxes
have the same order
fantasai: it works like z-index -- boxes with the same index are subsorted
by document order
<rbetts> +1 to just "order" as proposal D
pcupp: what other ordering is affected? if you re-order input element
does the tab order move around?
tabatkins: at the moment no, tab order comes from document order
straw poll
A = flex-order
B = box-order
C = display-order
D = order
plinss: D, then B
glazou: D, then B
sylvaing: abstain
antonp: not A
jdaggett: abstain
glenn: abstain
florian: B or D, not A
fantasai: not A
johnjansen: abstain
rossen: B
arronei: abstain
dbaron: D, then B
tabatkins: D, C, B
bradk: D then B
szilles: D, C, B
bert: abstain
rbetts: D
hober: abstain
<Bert> (Steven Pemberton once proposed a 'something-order' property to
reorder children, independent of the display model, like a
generic transformation.)
RESOLVED: rename flex-order to order
<antonp> D both pleases and scares me
TabAtkins: Last one for next week:
<TabAtkins> http://wiki.csswg.org/topics/start-end-before-after-align
Meeting closed.
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2012 04:42:36 UTC