W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2009

[CSS WG] minutes 2009-11-25

From: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:50:24 +0100
To: W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200911261550.24955.bert@w3.org>
          Dave Singer, Brad Kemper, Elika Etemad, Simon Fraser, Bert
          Bos, Sylvain Galineau, Håkon Lie, Cesar Acebal, Steve Zilles,
          Tab Atkins
          Daniel, Chris


         1. Agenda
         2. css3-backgrounds to CR?
         3. 'display: run-in' and replaced elements.
         4. Individual properties for text-shadow and box-shadow
         5. HTML5 dependencies
         6. Proposed W3C spec conventions
         7. Selectors status


   Peter: Anything for the agenda?

css3-backgrounds to CR?


   Peter: Elika sent a message.
   Håkon: I'd like border-shadow to be in, or at least moved to
   Elika: It was dropped, because it was unclear yet how it worked.
   We're still discussing how it should work, but the other parts are
   ready for CR. Brad made some drawings.
   Håkon: What is the schedule for it?
   Elika: It may be even be a module on its own, when we know what it
   should do. But not hold up Backgrounds. If it reached CR while
   Backgrounds is also still CR, we could even merge them back.
   Håkon: I'd like to get it back in eventually, indeed. What were the
   Elika: Not so much disagreements, just lots of discussions. Too many
   things we don't know yet.
   Tab: Looking also at filter and such. A simple box shadow for now is
   acceptable for me.
   Elika: Concern with a simple and a full-fletched one is that the
   cascade may be difficult.
   Elika: Fear that this will be difficult for authors and difficult in
   Tab: Maybe it can become an alias or shorthand.
   Elika: That is something to consider, but later.
   Håkon: I'd also like to move ahead with just the simple box shadow
   already. It is so incredibly useful.
   Steve: We had a huge discussion at ftf.
   Håkon: Can we put box shadow back in?
   Elika: No, I don't want that. Don't want to hold the draft back any
   longer. Too many useful features that are ready.
   Håkon: Who is looking at the future shadow properties?
   Elika: Nobody right now.
   Håkon: I think there are box shadow implementations, aren't there?
   Elika: Yes, but there are some issues.
   Tab: Can I make a quick box shadow draft over the weekend?
   Håkon: I would really like this feature as soon as possible. So I
   support that.
   Tab: I will work with Elika on it.
   Brad: Shadow can maybe be represented with filters. Make sure they
   work together.
   Tab: We can already decide what we want without having to wait for
   full filters.
   <fantasai> I'm still concerned about the cascading and
   forwards-compatibility issues with box-shadow and filters
   Peter: So does that remove Håkon's issue with publishing CR?
   Håkon:  I want to note something in the draft about shadow.
   Tab: Can be an informative note.
   Sylvain: Move it to a different module?
   Peter: Does it matter if it is in the Background module or in a
   separate one?
   Håkon: No, but it seems to fit in this one.
   Elika: So we make a note about a possible new module, or a later
   version of this one.
   Bert: I have some uncertainty about the use of "mouse" and "event"
   in solving [13]issue 1. So far, CSS only used "designating an
   element with a pointing device" (for hover) which is more generic.
   But I guess we can clarify later if needed.
     [13] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-background/issues-lc-2009
   Peter: So OK to publish as CR?

   Nobody objects

   RESOLUTION: request to publish css3-background as CR

'display: run-in' and replaced elements.


   Elika: Don't see why they should not run in. Nothing in spec
   indicates otherwise.
   Tab: Yes, agreed. I want it to go inline. Brad had an example.
   Peter: Is this just a bug in browsers then?
   Tab: IE makes it inline, others make a block. May need
   Peter: Any opinion on it from Apple? Bug or not?
   Håkon: Edge case…
   Simon: Seems a bug.
   Håkon: "run-in" is traditionally applied to text, but I can see the
   effect being useful.
   Steve: Using a symbol instead of a font is a use case.
   Håkon: Yes, I can live with that.
   Peter: So we agree, but do we need a clarification in the spec?
   Tab: Given that both Opera and Apple are happy, I'm fine with text
   as it is.

Individual properties for text-shadow and box-shadow

   Tab: Generally in favor of individual properties.
   Simon: Need to have logic to match up values in comma-separated
   lists in separate properties.
   Tab: Sometimes easier to specify just one sub-property without
   repeating the whole.
   Håkon: The multiple comma-separated lists seems a pain.
   Simon: Already for backgrounds; we can deal with it.
   Håkon: Not happy wth background either…
   Peter: Maybe a functional notation?
   Tab: Yes, comma lists are weird. Would like to work on that some
   time. But OK with it for now,
   Simon: More generally, do we ever want compound properties with
   individual properties for each part? Explosion of properties.
   Peter: Seems not a question of storage or performance. Need to deal
   with the components anyway.
   Elika: If we split a property, than the old property becomes a
   Elika: I would like to hear David Baron on this. He sent an
   [15]e-mail about it today.
     [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Nov/0315.html
   Simon: I think we should make a general policy about compound
   <smfr> ok for me
   Peter: Consensus seems to be that this is part of a wider policy and
   we need more feedback before a decision.
   Steve: Maybe we need a naming convention?
   Tab: In what way?
   Steve: Basically to take the base name of the property and append
   something to name the component.
   Tab: So we don't have to describe so much, because it is systematic?
   Peter: Indeed good to keep the first part of the name the same
   between shorthand and individual properties.

HTML5 dependencies

   Peter: Daniel noted that HTML5 refers to BECSS, which we don't work
   on anymore.
   Tab: Hixie [17]mentioned in e-mail the references he was aware of.
     [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Nov/0314.html
   Peter: Need somebody to check. HTML5 is easy reading :-)

Proposed W3C spec conventions

   Peter: Doug Schepers wrote a [18]message proposing specification
     [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Nov/0027.html
   <fantasai> my reply:
   Peter: He also mentioned some tools.
   <fantasai> current proposal 6
   Brad: Template and script looked pretty cool. Less chance of doing
   things wrong.
   <oyvind> padding/background/border on inlines doesn't look so good
   Peter: We need people to look it over. Give feedback.
   <bradk> gah

Selectors status

   Peter: PR was approved.
   Bert: But we cannot advance to Rec before CSS 2.1 is PR.

  Bert Bos                                ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/
  http://www.w3.org/people/bos                               W3C/ERCIM
  bert@w3.org                             2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
  +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92            06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Thursday, 26 November 2009 14:51:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:40 UTC