- 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