W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2013

[CSSWG] Minutes Telecon 2013-10-16

From: Dael Jackson <daelcss@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 21:05:23 -0400
Message-ID: <CADhPm3u8BDkt-JYLqYnxdfFuYX4HqymZkYwWe3hWmkU6FWJt6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
GCPM and Page Floats Status and Next Steps
------------------------------------------

  - Howcome explained why he wanted the move GCPM and Page Floats to the
        WHATWG
  - The implications to the working group of this move were discussed.
        This includes how WHATWG documents have been used with other
        W3C projects and what future steps will be.
  - No conclusion was reached as Howcome had to leave the telecon, but
        the conversation was productive.

Shapes
------

  - Stearns and Fantasai will continue their conversation on the mailing
        list to reach a consensus.

Regions and Overflow
--------------------

  - Stearns requested feedback on his comments about Regions and
        Overflow.

Writing Modes
-------------

  - Fantasai requested that the group move Writing Modes to last call in
        order to get a comment period completed before TPAC.
  - She viewed the one outstanding issue as minor and can be addressed
        in last call between herself, Koji, and Jdaggett.
  - Glazou will e-mail Jdaggett to see if he is okay with this proposal.

CSS Style Attribute
-------------------

  - ChrisL requested more comments to be posted on the proposed
        recommendation.

=====FULL MINUTES BELOW======

Present:
  Glenn Adams
  David Baron (late)
  Bert Bos
  Dave Cramer
  Justin Erenkrantz
  Elika Etemad
  Simon Fraser
  Sylvain Galineau
  Daniel Glazman
  Dael Jackson
  Philippe Le Hégaret
  Chris Lilley
  Peter Linss
  Edward O'Connor
  Christopher Palmer
  Anton Prowse
  Florian Rivoal
  Simon Sapin
  Alan Stearns
  Leif Arne Storset
  Lea Verou
  Håkon Wium Lie
  Steve Zilles

Regrets:
  Rossen Atanassov
  Tab Atkins
  John Daggett
  Rebecca Hauck
  Brian Kardell
  Simon Pieters

ScribeNick: Dael

  glazou: Let's start
  glazou: As usual, any extra items?
  stearns: I have one about regions and overflow
  glazou: Anything else?

  glazou: So we have a lot of regrets today, including TabAtkins and
          he's not ready for CSS Counter Styles.

GCPM and Page Floats Status and Next Steps
------------------------------------------

  howcome: I can repeat in my e-mail but I think maybe...I have been in
           discussions with plh after my announcement
  howcome: How we can have a solution to continue working in WHATWG and
           keep in W3C.
  plh: I hope you can hear me
  plh: We want to avoid fragmentations and we have some ideas that allow
       us in the working group.
  plh: It would be better if can work together, but we haven't made
       headway for that.
  plh: We've been working on using a community group so howcome can stay
       on his own pace and bring results back to the working group.

  <ChrisL> plh please repeat last sentence
  <plh3> .zum
  <ChrisL> or type it

  howcome: I think i got the gist of what you're saying.
  plh: I think we need a task for howcome to do what he wants to do but
       still contribute ideas to WG

  florian: The question is howcome do you want to stay in the working
           group?
  howcome: I think we need other names. I want to stay in WHATWG and the
           names books and figures are good there.
  howcome: I've studied that and want to stretch further but not too far
           and hope for rapid development.
  howcome: I want to stay in WHATWG
  howcome: I think there's good thinking on both sides and want this to
           be one work moving forward.

  howcome: If we can move back into W3C and that's a good thing.
  howcome: There's a bunch of specs in WHATWG that go back into W3C
  howcome: What I haven't found examples of is SSA, is that right?
  plh3: Actually, I'm not sure if it was done.
  plh3: We're looking to do that for SSA as well.

  glazou: I hear what everyone says and we'll be glad if WHATWG work
          goes back into W3C.
  glazou: The recommendation for Page Floats is in the process, so I
          don't see what it changes between you working in the working
          group vs you working in WHATWG.
  howcome: I think W3C would be better to answer that. It won't be page
           floats it'll be books.
  howcome: I think a lot of people want to bring it back into W3C,
  howcome: If that requires time, so be it.

  krit: Do you prefer a model where changes from WHATWG flow back into
        the working group, or where the guaranteed names of GCPM are
        held?
  howcome: HTML is the biggest inside WHATWG and there's a nightly copy
           for that.
  howcome: And then there's things with URLs at slower pace.

  glazou: It's not something to resolve today, I suspect some members
          will require more information about
  glazou: how contributions go back and forth and that's normal.
  howcome: I agree

  sylvaing: I have a question
  sylvaing: Feedback from the Paris F2F and later, the issue with GCPM
            is it wasn't specific enough.
  sylvaing: Or where there was specifications, there were issues with
            them.
  sylvaing: How does moving to WHATWG change how the spec will be
            implemented?
  sylvaing: That's been the issue with GCPM for a long time
  sylvaing: How does the logistics change make it move forward?
  howcome: Inside WHATWG gives me the atmosphere to work more easily.
  howcome: The technical issues you point out are real but manageable.
  howcome: There are two implementations  that are fairly interoperable
           and they need to be tested and filled in but that hasn't
           stopped implementation.
  howcome: The issue at hand is manageable and I can make fast progress
  <ChrisL> 'fairly interoperable' with what tests?

  sylvaing: So these are things you could have done last year, so what's
            different now?
  howcome: Implementation hasn't been mature. At least, I don't remember
           when the first CSS support released.
  howcome: Implementation is what's driving this, and now there are
           mature ones.
  howcome: I have the time and implementors and want to do it.

  glenn: I move we approve this work
  glazou: I don't think we have choice. Howcome didn't ask permission.
  glazou: This isn't decision by consensus
  plh3: I don't think it needs to be approved
  howcome: I think glenn approved that the working group is interested
           in work and wants to take it back in again
  sylvaing: Or is Glenn saying that the working group agrees to not work
            on it anymore?
  glenn: I withdraw, I just wanted to express support
  glazou: For what?
  glenn: For howcome to do this and bring back into WG in future.

  glazou: So howcome, you said you're willing to continue outside of the
          group and you're OK if the group continues to publish along
          normal track.
  howcome: That's not what I'm proposing, not yet. It's that you want to
           continue with GCPM and Page Floats.
  glazou: Community groups don't do specs...
  glazou: Community groups don't do standards; that needs to be done
          inside the working group.
  glazou: That means we need editors inside the working group.
  * sgalineau thinks CGs write specs, they're just not standards

  plh3: I'm not sure I understand what you mean with it's not a spec. It
        won't be a standard, but it is still a draft or a spec if you
        want.
  plh3: It's not W3C standards in community groups.
  glazou: howcome does the community group edits and we need to adapt
          them to make them pass through the recommendation track
  glazou: That's editing work and who wants to do it?

  howcome: I think at some point, if things are right, I can bring it
           back into the group again.
  howcome: I can make sure specs are written to be easy to bring back.
  howcome: I'm more hesitant to write the test suite alone.

  dauwhe: Was one possibility that howcome would be working on these
          things and we would try and maintain a parallel?
  dauwhe: Or do we wait for howcome to be done and do new spec?
  glazou: I'm unable to answer. I don't know ETA on the spec according
          to howcome
  ChrisL: However howcome says there's interoperability and it just
         needs testing so that says the time is now to bring it to W3C
  howcome: And that's what I'm trying to do.
  * sgalineau heard from publishers there were many interop issues, fwiw

  glazou: You said it wasn't perfect and interop was difficult in F2F.
  glazou: You said before it was hard and now you're saying it's not.
  howcome: You're trying to make it seem like I said two different
           things and I communicated this in my e-mail:
  howcome: There are 2 implementations and they're close, I need to sift
           differences and I want to do that work.

  howcome: ETA, I think I can commit to 2013
  ChrisL: You mean 2 months?
  howcome: For books. Page floats has more issues
  ChrisL: Thank you for clarifying. We're not trying to trip you up,
          we're trying to clarify.

  ChrisL: You're saying there's some corner cases?
  howcome: Yes, there's a small number. This isn't about designing new
           features, this is tracking good features and writing them.
  howcome: What I cannot commit to is to writing the test suite.
  glazou: I'd like to point out that nothing says the editor needs to
          write the test suite alone.
  howcome: I agree
  glazou: Given the strength a month ago no one was willing to
          contribute. All the effort in Paris was a good compromise and
          was done in spirit to allow contributors.

  SteveZ: I'm going to switch topic, so if there's more to say you can
          continue.
  SteveZ: What I wanted to ask is do you want the working to officially
          drop GCPM and Page Floats and therefore release the patents?
  SteveZ: So you can pursue independently and resubmit later?
  howcome: I'm not sure. Maybe there's a case to keep patents in place.
  howcome: I don't think it's a good idea for someone else to take them
           over because they'll diverge.
  howcome: What we can do in spirit of working together is for me to set
           off, write spec, write tests, and come back in January.
  howcome: See what we have and make a choice.
  krit: We have a F2F in Jan so there's a timeframe in place.

  dauwhe: Of course I joined this discussion late, but as a heavy user
          of GCPM I'm interested in it moving forward and willing to do
          whatever to get progress.
  howcome: That's great to hear.
  howcome: Having power users like you is good. www-style will continue
           to have discussion no matter where publication is.

  SimonSapin: I think it's good that you're moving forward.
  SimonSapin: How is it this different from a editor's draft?
  <sgalineau> +1 I don't understand how WHATWG makes all those goals
              more/less achievable.
  howcome: No constraints. It's a different type of standard
  howcome: This is basically an editor's draft but in a different place.
  glazou: I don't understand what you get doing that. It's a personal
          comment.
  glazou: howcome you have to understand work of working group won't
          change. Working group is bound by process and rules.
  glazou: I understand you don't like it but we're going to do what the
          consortium tells us to do.
  glazou: I want GCPM to e a REC.

  glazou: I think you misunderstood me on the point.

  <fantasai> I propose we publish Page Floats FPWD and sort out the
             process stuff later, this is silly.
  <leaverou> agree with fantasai.
  <glazou> fantasai, this is not silly

  ChrisL: I don't understand howcome's comment about putting the spec in
          stasis.
  ChrisL: Given that it's only corner cases for interoperability issues
          and there's a user willing to help with test, I think it
          should be full speed ahead.

  ChrisL: I like the name "Books" better than GCPM anyway
  <stearns> +1 to books
  * dauwhe +1 on books
  * leaverou agreed GCPM is confusing, but not sure books is a better
             name. It's not just about books, no?

  ChrisL: Moving ahead it's interesting and we want to see it
          implemented more.
  ChrisL: To have it used more it's clear to someone that's...when
          someone's written everything it's clear in their head but not
          outside.
  ChrisL: I don't understand the comment about putting it on hold.
  howcome: The comment is because a new editor is a new direction.
  ChrisL: But it's for things that don't work. What's wrong with new
          editor making things work?
  glazou: That's the point of the process.
  howcome: You have that right, but it'll lead to fragmentation.
  glazou: You started the fragmentation.
  howcome: I think that discussion is not productive.
  glazou: We want you to remain editor inside the group, but you want to
          stay outside.
  howcome: I'm hoping to bring it back once I've progressed

  ChrisL: So you're saying we shouldn't progress; If dauwhe wants to
          write tests he shouldn't?
  howcome: Tests aren't the problem.
  ChrisL: So you write tests and find disagreement in which case the
          spec is the problem.
  ChrisL: Tests create edits.
  howcome: Clarifications, not new sections

  howcome: I have a personal issue not related to the conversation, I
           have to go.
  howcome: I think we're on a productive path

  SteveZ: Largely what I've heard is splitting makes more problems than
          solves,
  SteveZ: I have to join two groups to function and where clarifications
          are done is confusing.
  howcome: Discussions are still going to be on www-style
  SteveZ: I don't understand what you're getting from this.
  howcome: We can talk in private

  glazou: Let's stop and let howcome go.
  glazou: We'll come back to this later. This discussion was important.
  glazou: We'll have to discuss as a group about the implications of
          WHATWG and GCPM are.

Writing Modes
-------------

  glazou: I got an e-mail from John, not ready to discuss now.

Shapes
------

  stearns: This needs feedback from fantasai.
  stearns: Should we do that on the mailing list and have TabAtkins and
           I keep working?

  fantasai: We have two ways to go, we should use the same syntax as
            SVG and do we want future rectangles to work?
  fantasai: I would like for use to figure out a way to have both ways
            of positioning to work
  fantasai: I don't think we should have an SVG circle and a CSS circle.

  stearns: I disagree so we should go back to mailing list.
  stearns: If you'd respond on the mailing list with your thoughts, I
           don't think it's useful in call.
  fantasai: OK

Regions and Overflow
--------------------

  <stearns> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Oct/0384.html
  <stearns> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Oct/0250.html
  stearns: It's short. I've started to write how regions and overflow
           work together.
  stearns: They're short so I expect questions on what I'm asserting,
  stearns: Especially using regions and targeting elements.
  stearns: Please read so and give me feedback.

  glazou: Questions?
  glazou: Okay...We still have time. It can be a short call

Writing Modes
-------------

  fantasai: On the topic of writing modes, glazou you asked what was
            holding it up.
  fantasai: It's a minor detail so we can make it undefined.
  fantasai: The spec has it undefined and the argument is for making it
            not undefined.
  glazou: There's a disagreement on what to do and if everyone agrees on
          leaving it undefined for now we can move to LC.
  glazou: If they don't and it takes another month for a solution, we
          can't for to LC.
  glazou: So my question was can we leave it undefined.

  fantasai: I think we can leave undefined.
  glazou: Not everyone is on the call so we can't decide.

  ChrisL: I think we need feedback from UTC to see if the spec breaks
          their rules.
  ChrisL: We need them to comment officially on list
  * sgalineau thought talking about it at TPAC with i18n/UTC feedback
               was a good plan, fwiw.

  fantasai: I'd prefer to leave this particular detail undefined.
  fantasai: I think this decision will take until TPAC,
  fantasai: But holding up this whole spec means we can't address other
            comments.
  fantasai: I think it would be good to do that.
  fantasai: It's elsewise tightly spec'ed and this one section is the
            only issue.
  fantasai: That's the only decision that's holding this up.
  fantasai: I'm happy to leave this open to LC period

  <stearns> if there is spare time at the end of the call, fantasai and
            I could try to hash out shape syntax, but I fear we'd bore
            everyone else.

  glazou: Anything else?
  <sgalineau> we're talking about holding up for 3-4 more weeks. is that
              a problem?

  fantasai: If people are okay I'd publish the LC
  glazou: Without jdaggett or koji I don't want to.

  Steve Z: Maybe put it here and see if koji or jdaggett will accept it
  fantasai: I don't think we should do that. Yes for a large contentious
            issue, but this is minor.
  ChrisL: Typically we don't go to LC with issues, but we can say this
          is to be handled in future.
  sgaluneau: That's what I said in my e-mail last night
  glazou: Is there consensus from WG?

  sgalineau: We'll spend another month, it's more like discussion
             freezes to TPAC.
  sgalineau: TPAC is close enough that I don't know why we care about
             waiting.

  SteveZ: One reason we might care is we'll have more to discuss at TPAC
          if we go to LC now.
  SteveZ: Or we extend LC period so people don't feel rushed.
  fantasai: I think this spec is likely to have 2 LC periods
  fantasai: I'm happy to take extensions if people need more time.
  fantasai: I want to collect comments because there's nothing I can do
            to move spec forward and once we reach LC there will be.
  many: That's fair

  glazou: Let's be clear, what do you want to do.
  fantasai: I'd like to leave this behavior undefined for implementors
            to do both ways, mark it as an issue that's being discussed
            with these options,
  fantasai: And ask for comments on that and ask for LC so we can have a
            LC period ending around TPAC so we can get work done at
            TPAC.
  glazou: Thoughts?

  glazou: Let's decide now
  * Bert either way is fine with me
  florian: My understanding of jdaggett's opinions is he wouldn't agree.
  glazou: But I'm asking for your opinion.
  florian: I'm not sure I have enough information to decide, but I see
           the conflict.
  florian: I'm not convinced jdaggett is wrong.
  florian: Going against him feels wrong.
  fantasai: But we're not.
  florian: But we'd do last call with text he disapproves of.
  fantasai: The current text is undefined and he disapproves of that

  * sgalineau is concerned undefining the whole thing is something Koji
              will object to
 * fantasai thinks koji would be ok with undefined, because it allows
            what he wants

  glazou: I'm not hearing consensus.
  SteveZ: Can we ask participants for something to let us do LC while
          they keep talking?
  SteveZ: Since we need koji and jdaggett to agree to a stop-gap, can we
          ask for them to agree to that?
  glazou: Who is going to do that given complexity of issues?
  fantasai: I can try, I have an e-mail from jdaggett where he says we
            should LC with an outstanding contentious issue.

  <trackbot> Created ACTION-587 - Ask koji and jdaggett to come to a
             stop-gap measure [on Daniel Glazman - due 2013-10-23.]

  <ChrisL> since we have time q+ to remind about CSS Style Attribute
          proposed rec.

  SteveZ: There's still information to be gathered, does the working
          group have consensus that we need to get LC out since we need
          comments, recognizing no decision on this issue?
  <sgalineau> also, LC will encourage i18n and others to review this
              issue soon anyway
  fantasai: If we don't publish tomorrow, we can't have a period that
            ends before or during TPAC.
  SteveZ: They don't wait to end to comment.
  ChrisL: Yes they do.
  SteveZ: So we're already too late :)

  fantasai: I think we did this with an issue with fonts where we left
            it open for LC.
  fantasai: This is a similar level of detail.
  <fantasai> vertical synthesized italics

  glazou: I don't know what to do. No consensus.
  fantasai: jdaggett doesn't think it's okay,
  fantasai: Ask if he's okay with publishing if there's issues?
  glazou: I already accepted action to email and ask them
  sylvaing: I think we need to go into LC super soon.
  glazou: I'm going to e-mail in the next hour, but it's night for
          jdaggett.
  sylvaing: If we can do in the next week, we need to.
  glazou: To conclude, I'll ask jdaggett today and hopefully he'll reply
          quickly.

CSS Style Attribute
-------------------

  ChrisL: Reminder we have proposed rec on Style. I'm not seeing
          comments.
  ChrisL: It needs comments to go forward. I don't see any issues, but I
          need the comments to say yes.
  Simon Sapin: We've discussed this. I can make an errata, but the spec
        doesn't contain it until it's a rec.
  fantasai: I think it should for to rec and then do errata

  ChrisL: Seriously, if you want to send errata it needs to be a rec.
  fantasai: This isn't an error in the document, it's something we
            decided to change in 2.1.
  SimonSapin: I was told to make an errata

  <glazou> only 2 ACs voted on that PR

  fantasai: Once it's published as rec we can make a errata
  glazou: To make it clear, there's only two votes and one of those
          voting is speaking.

  glazou: Any other agenda items?
  glazou: I think we've exhausted everything. Thank you everyone.

[Meeting ended]
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2013 01:05:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 17 October 2013 01:05:52 UTC