W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2008

[CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2008-07-23

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:26:23 -0700
Message-ID: <4890EA8F.3040707@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org


   - Will compile topics for next F2F on the wiki
   - Plan to remove discussion of vertical layout from Marquee module
     so it can progress to REC quickly based only on CSS2.1. (Need to
     discuss with OMA first.)
   - Need a document with vertical layout terminology that other CSS3
     modules can refer to.
   - Discussed :lang() and [xml|lang|=] case-sensitivity. Seem to have
     agreement that :lang() should be case-insensitive. Need proposed
   - RESOLVED: Proposal for CSS2.1 Issue 45 accepted with
               s/this/this hypothetical calculation/

Full minutes below.

   David Baron
   Bert Bos
   Giorgi Chavchanidze
   Arron Eicholz
   Elika Etemad
   Sylvain Galineau
   Melinda Grant
   Peter Linss
   Saloni Mira Rai
   Steve Zilles

<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/07/23-css-irc
<fantasai> ScribeNick: fantasai
<fantasai> I'm likely to leave early, so someone else will need to take over minutes

Agenda / Style attribute

   Peter: Anything to add to agenda?
   Melinda: Hoping for a brief discussion about where the definition of
            what's required for support for 'style' attribute
   fantasai: We could rip out all new functionality in the style attr
             draft and publish that: that's what Tantek suggested. It's
             not defined anywhere in 2.1

Agenda for F2F

   Peter: We don't have enough topics to fill a 3-day meeting yet
   Peter: I was thinking we should put up a page on the wiki and have
          people fill in
   Peter: I'd like to keep the F2F primarily technical, focus on things
          that benefit from us all being in the same room
   Peter: We will filter and sort as time goes on


   fantasai: Still waiting for Bert to reply last I checked
   Bert: I was thinking we should just remove any mention of vertical text
   Bert: We can't test it until Text Layout is done
   fantasai: I'm pretty sure we can write the text so it works in the future,
             but testing would be a blocker for getting to REC
   Melinda: Should we ask OMA? If they're doing vertical text, then they'll
            want these definitions
   ACTION: Bert Ask OMA what mobile world thinks about removing vertical
           text descriptions from Marquee
   Peter: If they say they need it, they better be prepared to provide an
          implementation of it
   Bert: Someone said he has test reports for marquee, needs to work on them
         a bit more first but will send them to me
   Peter: So are we agreed that unless Mobile needs vertical, we remove it
          from the draft?
   Steve: I think that's a good idea. We should keep vertical in mind, though.
   Peter: Yeah. We don't want to block ourselves in the future, but we don't
          want to be blocked by vertical

   Bert: Good topic for F2F?
   fantasai: yeah. We should take some time to define terminology that we can
             use and refer to from other specs
   fantasai: That way the specs don't have to depend on how vertical text is
             done exactly, but we can make sure layout models in e.g. CSS3
             Multi-col can add the few sentences necessary to say how vertical
             layout is analogous
   Steve: Would be a good candidate for a W3C Note
   Bert asks about "primary paragraph direction" and fantasai explains about
   Steve: One of the topics for discussion at the F2F is what set of things
          ought to be considered content for that note
   Steve: Obviously some of the things we're talking about, but perhaps more
          than that.
   Steve: I know that fantasai and Paul and I put together some terminology
   Bert: Sounds like a req document for text module
   Steve: A bit more than that. Background, or something
   Steve: It's not just the text module, also applies to box module and others
   ACTION: fantasai add Note about vertical text terminology to F2F agenda

Case-sensitivity and lang attribute in XML

   Peter: XML says that attribute values are case-sensitive
   Peter: It also says that xml:lang takes lang codes, and lang codes are
   <plinss> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Jul/att-0026/xmllang.xhtml
   <dbaron> Even if xml:lang is defined to be case-insensitive, it's not
            necessarily case-insensitive at a level that CSS wants to know
   fantasai argues that we need to decouple [lang|=] and :lang(), and that
            :lang() should be case-insensitive per CSS
   <fantasai> and we should add a note saying whether xml:lang is
              case-sensitive or case-insensitive when matched against with
   Peter: I agree with that. I think :lang() should be very simple to use,
          have a consistent way of matching against the languages
   Peter: If a document language uses some other convention than RFC3066,
          then :lang(en) should still match English
   Peter: The language may not be coming from an attribute. It might be
          coming from an element, or an HTTP header. We don't know and we
          shouldn't care
   Melinda agrees with this proposal
   Peter: Do we have consensus that this is how the pseudo-class should work?
   Steve argues that CSS should define exactly which mechanisms can define
         language, Melinda and Peter and Elika argue that the definition
         should be generic and refer to the specs for the document language.
   Peter: I think we have agreement on how we want the lang attribute to work
   Peter: I think we have agreement to refer to other specs and explain how
          they work here
   Peter: The only disagreement is whether those references should be
          normative or informative
   ACTION: fantasai come up with wording for lang issue

CSS2.1 Issues

   <plinss> http://csswg.inkedblade.net/spec/css2.1#issue-35
   fantasai: need hyatt for that one
   <plinss> http://csswg.inkedblade.net/spec/css2.1#issue-45
   fantasai: it's just a clarification, doesn't change anything
   fantasai: Alex asked for it, because IE had a wrong interpretation of this
             case before
   Alex explains the issue
   Alex: It's pretty hard to get a precise definition here, but we have good
         interoperability on this point
   discussion of whether the antecedent of "this" in the proposed note is clear
   Steve proposes s/this/this hypothetical calculation/
   RESOLVED: proposal for issue 45 accepted with above fix
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 22:27:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:38 UTC