- 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