[CSSWG] Minutes and resolutions 2008-12-10


  1. CSS 2.1 Issue 87 / Action-119
     change accepted

  2. CSS 2.1 Issue 88
     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
     no change

  5. CSS 2.1 Issue 79 / Action-117
     proposal accepted

Full minutes:

  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