Re: [CSSWG] Minutes, 18 March 2009 CSSWG telcon


   - RESOLVED: Publish Animations, Transitions, 2D Transforms, and 3D Transforms
               as FPWD

   - Discussed test review process and decided to note reviewers' acceptance in
     the test with a <link> element.

   - Discussed Matrix Layout proposal, and agreed to defer discussion of layout
     proposals to an F2F.

   - Discussed CSS2.1 Issue wrt 'counter-increment: none 1', accepted Proposal 1
     to make it invalid.

====== Full minutes below ======

   Bert Bos
   Elika Etemad
   Sylvain Galineau
   Daniel Glazman
   Melinda Grant
   Chris Lilley
   Peter Linss
   Doug Schepers
   David Singer
   Anne van Kesteren
   Steve Zilles

<RRSAgent> logging to
<anne> WIP on my action items is on public-css-testsuite
<anne> I believe Bert is getting MQ to CR at this point.
  * shepazu would like to remind CSS folks about 3D Transforms spec...

<glazou> shepazu: yes we know
Scribe: Bert

Today's Agenda

   Anne: I suggest talking about test suite [see pointer above]

Publishing Transforms in coordination with SVG

   <Zakim> +Shepazu
   Chris: SVG understood that CSS would publish it last week, but then they
          stopped the process when they noticed CSS wasn't publishing.
   <dsinger> Dave is puzzled at the lack of reaction to dean's comments to svg
   <dsinger> And also puzzled with chrisl
   <dsinger> Lack of pub
   * Bert is now puzzled why everyone is puzzled...
   <shepazu> dsinger, what do you mean?
   <anne> We did not publish because the CSS WG did not formally go on record
          for publishing.
   Chris: We agreed to publish jointly with SVG, but CSS wasn't ready and
          nothing was published.
   DaveS: Why were we not ready?
   <ChrisL> Bert, whats up with these four documents?
   Bert: I couldn't find any resolution in the minutes, so couldn't publish a
         1st WD.
   Doug: I couldn't find resoltuion either, maybe it was just not correctly
   <ChrisL> ok so since we all recall agreeing this a couple of weeks ago lets
            have a minuted resolution today
   fantasai: There was indeed no resolution, only discussion.
   dsinger: We got stuck on talking on one para in 2D.
   <ChrisL> hearing no objections here
   Steve: We approved 2D provided that para was added.
   Doug: SVG really wants to see all 4 published. Can we get resolution on that?
   Doug: 2D, 3D, animation and transition.
   Steve: Think we had approval on all but 3d
   dsinger: We agreed to publish 3d, but make it clear it's on a longer
   <ChrisL> so we can publish all four
   RESOLUTION: publish all four: anim, 3D, 2D and transtions.

   Doug: SVG said to Dean already we are very interested in cooperating on all
   Chris: Last weeks SVG's meeting we talked about Dean's comments.
   Doug: Yes, the SVG editor has an action to work on them.
   <ChrisL> the editor in svg has an action to fold in all deans comments
             before publication
   Doug: Might be good to have joint telcon SVG-CSS. Maybe even a taskforce.
   DaveS: But not middle of the night for Dean...
   * fantasai is so happy SVG and CSS are cooperating happily
   * ChrisL is too
   * shepazu yays

Test Review Process

   Anne: At ftf we decided that if you review a test, you would indicate that.
   Anne: Also decided you could change and somebody else would review that.
   Anne: But not clear from the test itself who reviewed it.
   Anne: So proposal is a small change to tets format.
   Melinda: So anybody who makes a change should add a link?
   Anne: yes, add a "reviewer" link.
   fantasai: "Author" is who wrote the test, maybe has copyright.
   Melinda: So are we adding "author" "contributor" or "reviewer" links?
   <fantasai> Add "author" if you make a significant contribution to the test
   <fantasai> i.e. not fixing a typo or tweaking the title
   <fantasai> actually changing the test
   fantasai: [writing in IRC due to phone troubles]
   * anne has to run, will hopefully review his tests soonish
   <sylvaing> so if I submit a test, then fantasai edits it then anne approves
              it we'll have...
   <fantasai> The problem I had with the reviewer link idea, is that it's not
              clear when the complete test is reviewed
   <sylvaing> a link rel=author for fantasai's edit
   <fantasai> for example
   <fantasai> a test is submitted with some problems
   <fantasai> I review it
   <fantasai> it's mostly good
   <sylvaing> then a link rel=reviewer for anne ?
   <fantasai> but this one part needs a fix
   <fantasai> I can fix it and then ask the author to review my chang
   <fantasai> in that case
   <fantasai> we're both actually reviewers
   <anne> sylvaing, yes
   <sylvaing> ok
   <anne> sylvaing, but you can review it yourself as well
   <fantasai> that doesn't help fantasai programmatically figure out whether
              the test is *approved* yet or not
   <anne> (dates should be clear from SVN)
   Melinda: So probably the review needs a date field as well.
   <fantasai> Anyone can review
   <anne> fantasai, "reviewer" means approved
   <fantasai> peers will approve the tests and move it over, and that might
              mean rubber-stamping a review by someone competent
   Chris: We have a list of who reviews which chapter in principle.
   <anne> fantasai, is what we decided
   <sylvaing> right, not sure I as microsoft should review our own tests. am
              open to reviewing other tests
   * anne has to go
   <fantasai> e.g. if jdaggett is reviewing the fonts test,s I'll assume he's
   <fantasai> if someone I've never heard of reviews them, I will probably
               take another look first
   Melinda: No record of who "approves" a test?
   <fantasai> before copying the tests into CVS
   <fantasai> no, just cvs record for that bit
   <fantasai> So
   Melinda: So whoever approves must do a CVS check-in?
   <fantasai> there's two levels of "review" one is mainly about reviewing
              the test
   <fantasai> the other is mainly checking that the test has been appropriately
   <fantasai> the first level is where we send comments to public-css-testsuite
   <fantasai> and mark reviewer in the test case itself
   <fantasai> the second level is mainly about copying it into the main repo
   * fantasai wonders if everyone's on irc, or if someone should read her
   <fantasai> it should mean that you looked at the test and approve of it
   <fantasai> at least
   <fantasai> that was the goal
   Peter: Confused about the "reviewer" link: is that marking review or
          approval? Or both?
   Peter: And the "contributor" link?
   <fantasai> the main purpose of the reviewer link isn't to say who revieed
              the test for posterity
   <fantasai> it's so that someone knows the test has been approved
   <fantasai> "contributor" doesn't exist
   <fantasai> we are using "author'
   Sylvain: OK, so there is no "contributor." Fine.
   <fantasai> The *point*
   <fantasai> of this link
   <fantasai> was to mark "this test has been reviewed"
   Peter/Melinda: Is this for all existing tests as well?
   <fantasai> without creating a new system for recording which test have been
   Steve: Do the tests already have "author" links?
   melinda: Yes, I think they do.
   <fantasai> yes, they have "author" links
   Fantasai: Yes, all tests have "author." I put them in.
   Fantasai: Goal is not to know who reviewed, but to approve.
   Fantasai: There were other ideas, such as a wiki page. I don't really care
             about the mechnaism, but we need some way to track.
   Fantasai: Depending on who is the reviewer I may or may not do another
             review myself.
   Melinda: So "reviewer" means approval.
   Steve: Except when reviewer makes changes inthe process.
   Melinda: But then you would use an "author" link rhather than reviewer,
            wouldn't you?
   Steve: OK, I see.
   Fantasai: The fixes by a reviewer need to be reviewed, by the original
             author, e.g.
   Fantasai: We could put a date in comments or something.
   Steve: Idea is to know that last reviewer is not not the same as the
          last author.
   Steve: Author has signed off that *he* believes it is correct. Just
          need somebody else after that.
   Steve: Can we put a date field in the link?
   Fantasai: A comment on the same line might work.
   Steve: Or just an unknown attribute?
   Fantasai: It needs to validate.
   Fantasai/Steve: OK, so a date in a comment, then.
   <fantasai> <link rel="author reviewer" title="Elika Etemad"/> <!-- 2009-03-17 -->
   <ChrisL> it will do
   <fantasai> meaning "everything looks ok except the stuff I changed,
              and the stuff I changed needs to be reviewed"
   Fantasai: rel="author reviewer" (plus a date) means I reviewed everything
             except for the parts I changed.
   Steve: and thus rel="reviewer" means you did not change anything.
   Steve: Can you point to example?

Matrix Layout

   Fantasai: I agree with the comments Bert sent.
   Peter: It looks like an interesting idea. Would it fit? and if so where?
   Steve: We have to talk about Grid and Template at the same time.
   Steve: Maybe not urgent and better for a F2F meeting.
   Daniel: Is MS still working on Grid? Haven't heard from Alex in a while.
   Sylvain: Yes, still interested, but CSS 2.1 takes all resources right now.
   Sylvain: Alex should be at ftf in June.
   Steve: I haven't reviewed the new proposal yet.
   Melinda: I think we should put these three proposals side by side and
            compare their pros and cons
   Melinda: Putting the three together at a ftf seems a good idea, indeed.
            Towards some combination of them.
   Steve: And GCPM seems to have some stuff as well.
   Bert: Yes moveto/pullfrom and similar ideas.
   <fantasai> It seems to me this matrix proposal is just like template
              layout, except with the added ability to overlap elements
   Melnda: There is a need for improved layout techniques, but we need
           to be clear about our objectives.
   Steve: Peter, is that what you meant when you asked about how it fit?
   Peter: Yes, ftf seems reasonable. But also wants to know who is
          interested at the moment.
   Fantasai: We should look at the proposal and focus on use cases, but
             not focus on syntax too much now.
   Fantasai: Maybe the matrix things can be done by extending layout elsewhere.
   Sylvain: I heard there was interest in this stuff.
   Steve: It has always been clear that people want this. Less clear if
          there are implementers for it.
   <sylvaing> i.e. web designers came up during and after the CSS3 panel
              at SXSW to express interest in Jonathan Snook's proposal
   Steve: I mean: as a priority.
   Peter: So to summarize: I hear interest in evaluating the proposal.
          Don't hear anything about it being implemented soon.
   Peter: I suggest we pencil it in as a topic for the ftf.
   Steve: Somebody should respond to Jonathan to say we probably won't
          talk about it until June.
   Peter: Who will represent the matrix proposal?
   Steve: We can invite Jonathan...
   Steve: Other question: are there patents involved?
   Bert: Anybody know Jonathan Snook?
   All: No, never met him.
   <melinda> *jonathan is a member of the CSS 11 ;-)


   Fantasai: David Baron posted proposals.
   <fantasai> I'm in favor of option 1
   Steve: I like option 1
   Fantasai: Same question for other keywords, such as 'inherit'
   <fantasai> so any objections? :)
   * dsinger is appallingly ignorant, uninformed, and unopinionated on this subject
   Bert: Leaning to option 1 as well.
   Melinda: So what does this mean for 'inherit'?
   Steve: Can't use it is a counter name.
   Chris: Can you escape it? With a backslash?
   Fantasai: No.
   Sylvain: What's the use case for 'counter-increment: none'?
   Fantasai: I can't think of a reason for a counter named "none", but I
             can certainly see a case to explicitly set 'counter-increment'
             to 'none' to stop the counter from incrementing.
   Sylvain: I don't get the 'counter-inc: none 1' rule.
   Peter: That is just invalid.
   * dsinger has a conflicting call starting now, alas. sorry, bye
   Peter: I think that's implied by the prose, but not explicit.
   Melinda: We need some words to describe 'none' then.
   Peter: Yes, agree.
   Peter: Bert, can you write text?
   Bert: OK.
   Fantasai: I'll note it in the issues list.
   Peter: Should be enough if Bert sends it to www-style. We'll see what
          comments, if any, it gets.
   <fantasai> RESOLVED: accept proposal 1, Bert to come up with wording,
              submit for review to www-style; no objections mean accepted
   <szilles> Steve has probable regrets for next week due to AB meeting


Received on Monday, 8 June 2009 18:58:06 UTC