- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:25:02 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
Summary: 1. CSS 2.1 Issue 87 / Action-119 http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-87 change accepted 2. CSS 2.1 Issue 88 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Nov/0520.html consensus on option 1 3. Transforms: there will be two specs (2D and 3D) and they should be hosted by W3C 4. CSS 2.1 Issue 85 http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-85 no change 5. CSS 2.1 Issue 79 / Action-117 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Nov/0297.html proposal accepted Full minutes: Present: zakim, who is here? [09:08] <Zakim> On the phone I see plinss_, [Microsoft], glazou_sick, alexmog, Melinda_Grant, David_Baron, Bert, fantasai, ChrisL, +47.21.65.aabb [09:08] <Zakim> [Microsoft] has arronei [09:08] <Zakim> On IRC I see ChrisL, dbaron, melinda, sylvaing, emilyw, alexmog, RRSAgent, Zakim, plinss_, glazou_sick, arronei, Lachy, anne, krijnh, jdaggett, trackbot, Hixie, Bert, shepazu, [09:08] <Zakim> ... fantasai, plinss [09:08] <sylvaing> Zakim, [Microsoft] has sylvaing Also: Håkon (scribe) was there and Steve Zilles joined late. Peter: remember to re-join the group. Contact your AC rep to do so. Håkon: I've done so -- is there a way to see if I've been added? Chris L: The list on the web isn't dynamically updated, Bert: Opera has joined, but hasn't nominated anyone yet. Daniel: this is also the case for other organizatoins > 1. CSS 2.1 Issue 87 / Action-119 > > Comment position follow-up > > http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-87 Bert: there was a suggestion later in the thread to clarify that comments are not allowed inside tokens Resolved: change accepted. *Bert: I'll make the change. > 2. CSS 2.1 Issue 88 > > ------------------- > > Review Alex's proposal re: anonymous table boxes > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Nov/0520.html Alex: There are two proposals, I have a slight preference for the second one. Bert: I'd like to not introduce new types of boxes. Peter: We have interoperability on option 1. I'd like not to introduce new fuctionality in CSS 2.1 at this stage. Håkon: I'm with Peter and Bert on this. Resolved: consensus on option 1. *Alex: send new illustration *Bert: Make update. > 3. Transforms > > Should this be split into separate modules for 2D vs 3D? > > Glazou's question about testability of this and Transitions. Peter: splitting allows 2D to move ahead of 3D, but it's more overhead. Should we do this? David: I'd like to have separate specs; we've implemented 2D transforms Chrirs: having a separate 2D spec would allow people to reuse their SVG implementations Melinda: this is consistent with our approach Daniel: The documents are only available on Apple's web site Many: they should be moved to W3C *Dean: move the specs to W3C Resolved: there will be two specs (2D and 3D) and they should be hosted by W3C --- Daniel: how do we handle tests that require human interaction? I think we will run into cases where it's impossible to verify tests. <dicusssion on tests> > 4. CSS 2.1 Issue 85 > > Escaped newline follow-up > > http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-85 Bert: escape-newline is currently not defined -- this is not CSS Peter: escape-newline is currently only defined in strings Steve: I'm a little scared by having escape-newline inside identifiers Peter: when printed, the backslash will be visible Håkon: I don't see a need for this. Resolved: no change > 5. CSS 2.1 Issue 79 / Action-117 > > -------------------------------- > > Min/max height margin collapsing follow-up > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Nov/0297.html David: the change seems ok to me Bert: sounds good Steve: I'm not sure I understand what the effect is, but it looks like a clarification <some discussion> Resolved: proposal accepted. ---
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2008 18:25:44 UTC