W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > July 2013

Fwd: Re: Agenda conf call 19-jun-2013

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 00:25:12 -0700
Message-ID: <51D3D1D8.10508@inkedblade.net>
To: "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Agenda conf call 19-jun-2013
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:34:14 +0000
Resent-From: w3c-css-wg@w3.org
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:33:32 +0900
From: fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>
To: w3c-css-wg <w3c-css-wg@w3.org>

Regrets for this telecon. For some reason I forgot about it when
I booked my flight back to SFO, so unless we land *really* early,
I'll be on an airplane. :/

However, my comments are below. Please feel free to paste them
into IRC during the discussion. =)

> 1. css-text-3 Issues
> --------------------
> Interaction of 'text-align' and 'text-align-last':
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Jun/0263.html

I'm confident that Tab and dbaron can run this discussion,
as they understand these kinds of issues very well. Alan
Stearns can provide information on use cases.

I think at this point my goal for the discussion is to
raise awareness of the issue and the proposals in the WG,
and to collect more information on back-compat concerns.

I'm expecting we'll wait for feedback from MS/Google first,
but if there seems to be clear consensus at this point,
feel free to resolve.

> Allowing 'letter-spacing: <length>' to justify:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013May/0280.html
>   This would be a change for CSS2.1, which currently forbids this.
> Related change: have 'normal' compute to zero, as it does for
> 'word-spacing' already, since with this change they would mean
> the same thing.

We've discussed this problem before, including at the Tucson F2F.
I'm requesting a resolution here for 'letter-spacing' to match
'word-spacing' in allowing <length> values to allow justification
and computing 'normal' to zero. The resolutions should apply to
both CSS3 Text and CSS2.1.

> 2. CSS Ruby Editors
> -------------------
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2013AprJun/0270.html (member only)

Koji can run this discussion.

> 3. Revive direction focus nav properties
> ----------------------------------------
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Jun/0332.html

I'm in favor of Leif's position. If there's no design problem,
and we have implementations, then I see no reason to drop
these properties from Level 3.

If it was urgent to get a REC and this was blocking us from PR,
then maybe I'd consider dropping them. But this is not the case.
The spec isn't even in CR yet.

If it was urgent to get to CR, and this was blocking us, then
maybe I'd consider dropping them. But I haven't heard any concerns
with the design of the features, only their implementation/testing
status. But we have both implementations and dependent content, and
CR gives us time to collect test cases and implementation reports.

> 4. Errating MQ3
> ---------------
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Jun/0270.html

If Florian is up to producing an updated publication, then
let's prepare an editor's draft of a PER. The PER will need
a detailed list of all changes since the REC, and each change
should be accompanied by any requisite testcases and an
implementation report showing two passes. Once that's prepared,
we can resolve to embark on a REC->PER->REC cycle.

If there are any other issues on MQ3, we should be sure to
collect and address them before requesting PER, though!

> 5. Extend !important to !<anything>*
> ------------------------------------
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Jun/0268.html

Works for me.

> 6. elementsFromPoint() and pointer-events:paint-order
> -----------------------------------------------------
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Jun/0245.html

This also sounds good to me.

> 7. Multiple subject indicators
> ------------------------------
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Jun/0240.html

I have no strong opinion here.

> 8. Cross-origin style sheets
> ----------------------------
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Jun/0097.html
> 9. [css-shapes] restricting <uri> in shape-outside to CORS-same-origin?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Jun/0096.html

I defer to dbaron and bzbarsky on these issues, with bias to dbaron
if there's a conflict. :P

> A. [css-backgrounds] Painting area and 'background-attachment: local'
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Jun/0276.html

It is theoretically possible for the background painting area
underneath the border to scroll with the content. (Opera
implements this, for example.) The current spec puts it as a
"may", allowing the UA to clip to the padding edge instead.
I'm happy with the current spec. But if people feel strongly
about forcing 'background-clip' to 'padding-box', I'm OK with
that, too. If so, does it compute differently when the
'background-attachment' is 'local'? I'd say yes, just for

> B. Selectors 4
> --------------
> Collect any remaining issues, prepare for LC.

Yeah, this is mainly a call to collect issues and also a general
idea of areas people are concerned about, even if they haven't
filed issues against them yet. Please dump your concerns into
the minutes, so we can start working through them!

For WG discussion right now, there's a handful of renaming questions,
and this issue about syntactic sugar:

For the editors and those interested, we have a URL-related
section needing review/revision (:local-link), and relative
selectors could use a few more eyes.

> Can some features be moved from the complete profile to the
> fast profile? (ie. enabled in stylesheets)

And this question is also still open, of course.

We're not ready for LC yet, but we want to get there!

Also, I'd like IE.next to ship without prefixes on :lang().
Seriously. Can we get a WG resolution on that? ;)

Thanks for listening~

Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2013 07:25:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:34:46 UTC