- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:35:58 -0700
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Summary:
- RESOLVED: Republish CSS Snapshot 2007
- RESOLVED: Publish Media Queries after updating note about media queries
in HTML to point to HTML5
- RESOLVED: Change "A minimum of another six months of the CR period
must elapse" to four weeks for Media Queries
- Discussed CSS2.1 Issue 110 (abspos in table box construction)
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-110
- RESOLVED: Proposal accepted for CSS2.1 Issue 138 with correction in reply
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-138
====== Full minutes below =====
Present:
David Baron
Bert Bos
Arron Eicholz
Elika Etemad
Simon Fraser
Sylvain Galineau
Brad Kemper
Chris Lilley
Peter Linss
Steve Zilles
<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/07/21-CSS-irc
Scribe: szilles
Republish 2007 Snapshot, MQ CR
------------------------------
Peter: Proposed to republish 2007 Snapshot with css-style-attr included
Bert: no objection to re-publishing
RESOLVED: Publish CSS Snapshot 2007
Review sections 2 and 3 of MQ
<ChrisL> In media queries, is it still true that "HTML has not yet been
normatively updated to use media queries in the media attribute."?
<ChrisL> thought html5 had been updated to use media queries
<ChrisL> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/common-microsyntaxes.html#mq
Peter: Everythng else in MQ refers to HTML4
Chris: not much point in refering to HTML 4.01 at this point
fantasai: There is no reason to have a forward reference to HTML5
<dbaron> If the reference is explaining the history, it should probably
refer to the spec that was there at the time.
Chris: Since the reference is non normative, there is no reason not to
update the references to HTML5 to be more timely
dbaron: the references to HTML4 are mostly indicating the history of
the development of the MQ spec
Bert: HTML5 is only a draft so we cannot assert that it is done and will not change.
Chris: we could say that "the current draft of HTML5 has added ..."
RESOLVED: Publish mediaqueries after updating note about media queries
in HTML to point to HTMl5
fantasai: I believe the test suite exists it just needs to be posted
Bert: Pub Rules require some date
Chris: four weeks is a reasonable time; it would not constrain us and
the test cases still need to be posted
RESOLVED: Change "A minimum of another six months of the CR period
must elapse" to four weeks
* bradk has to leave the call now. Bye.
CSS2.1 Test Suite
-----------------
Arron: Sent one mail on the likely invalid tests; need people to look
at to see if they agree
Arron: About to send tests that do not pass in any browser; need people
to check the tests in their area of responsibility
Arron: Would love to have responses ideally by next phone call, but at
least by the call in two weeks.
Peter: Has anyone been working on their implementation reports?
Arron: is there a template for the report?
fantasai: no, but I could make one if we agree on what it should have
Arron and fantasai: to talk offline to agree on the format for the report
Peter: Is the test harness that was developed still functional?
fantasai: not at all sure; I have not looked at it.
Peter: is it worth spending some time to get that running again; it was
designed to gather statistic and be a start to an implementation
report
fantasai to contact Tab for help on this; Peter can help and contact Matt Bonner
CSS2.1 Issues
-------------
<plinss_> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-110
dbaron: I believe Boris has objected (threatening formally) to this proposal
dbaron: The objection is that there is currently interoperable behavior
dbaron: The behavior is that abs pos'd elements generate cells
fantasai: I cannot think of any other place where moving an abs pos
element out of normal flow generates normal flow content
fantasai: the choices seems to be between defining the behavior the
way authors would want it or the way that implementers
would want it
SteveZ: How common is having a abs pos element as the direct content
of a table cell or equivalent situations?
SteveZ: Is this enough of an edge case; is it sufficiently uncommon
that leaving the existing behavior is OK if not really desirable
Peter: That is my feeling
fantasai: There is nothing in the spec that would cause an abs pos
element to have an effect on surrounding normal flow content
<fantasai> But all the browser implementations implement abspos by
introducing a "placeholder" in their formatting structure
<fantasai> In most cases, this placeholder is not detectable
<fantasai> but in table box generation it is detectable
<fantasai> And so bz is saying to codify its existence, at least in
this one case where it is detectable
<fantasai> because all implementations chose to implement abspos this
way and we have interop on it
<fantasai> even though it makes no sense from the spec's point of view
Peter: Does anyone have an objection to BZ's proposal
fantasai: I would like more input from the other implementers as to
which way they would like to go.
Chris: Other implementers, like Prince?
fantasai: yes, and Antenna House
<Bert> Is it the case that <tr><td psoition:absolute>a <td>b <td>c
looks the same as <tr><td>b <td>c ?
<fantasai> In bz's proposal <tr><td>a<td position:absolute>b<td>c</tr>
<fantasai> looks the same as <tr><td>a<td><td>c</tr>
<fantasai> Also, <tr><td>a<td position:absolute>b<td position:absolute>c<td>d</tr>
looks the same as the above,too
Peter: Should this case in fact be codified or should it just be left
undefined?
Chris: That depends on whether the other implemetations are willing
to change; if not we would have to leave it undefined.
dbaron: It may be the case that other implementations do not even
implement this part of the spec.
SteveZ: we need to send a note to the implementers we are aware of
and ask which proposals they can live (and would be willing
to change to)
ACTION fantasai: Write proposal to deal with abspos in table box
generation according to bz's proposal
<plinss_> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-138
Issue 138
Peter: this is awaiting feedback from Alex
Sylvain: Alex thought the proposal was reasonable
<plinss_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Jul/0329.html
fantasai: I recall the float should move with rel pos of the containing block
dbaron: Tab has revised the proposal
Question about the "contained in the block box" should not that be
contained in the in-line block
<dbaron> also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Jul/0331.html
dbaron: there are two messages in the thread to that effect
<dbaron> I'm happy with the revised proposal.
<smfr> me too
Bert: it describes what I expect so I am happy to
RESOLVED: Proposal as modified by the two message is accepted
Meeting adjourns at 10 PDT
<RRSAgent> http://www.w3.org/2010/07/21-CSS-minutes.html
Received on Wednesday, 21 July 2010 20:36:33 UTC