W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2010

[CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2010-06-23

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:00:57 -0700
Message-ID: <4C2259E9.2060505@inkedblade.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

   - Reviewed CSS2.1 test suite status
   - Reviewed open CSS2.1 issues
   - Discussed whether preformatted text should be allowed to justify.
     (CSS2.1 Issue 53)
   - RESOLVED: Proposal accepted for CSS2.1 Issue 107 (top/left/bottom/right computed values)
   - RESOLVED: Proposal accepted for CSS2.1 Issue 145 (Handling forced line breaks and bidi)
   - RESOLVED: Proposal accepted for CSS2.1 Issue 149 (Definitions of px and physical units)
   - RESOLVED: Proposal accepted for CSS2.1 Issue 151 (Allow XML to use preshint level)
   - RESOLVED: Proposal accepted for CSS2.1 Issue 160 (Explain whether :first is :left or :right)
   - Accepted in principle to change spec for CSS2.1 Issue 172, but need exact wording.

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

   Tab Atkins
   David Baron (late)
   Beth Dakin
   Elika Etemad
   Simon Fraser
   Sylvain Galineau
   Daniel Glazman
   Brad Kemper
   Peter Linss
   Steve Zilles

<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/06/23-CSS-irc
Scribe: Tab Atkins

CSS2.1 Test Suite

   glazou: Elika, test suite status?
   fantasai: Status is we published alpha 3 last week.  There's a bunch
             of moz tests that still need to be imported.  Arron says
             he's fixed the ones that were wrong, but there was still
             some errors when I checked yesterda.
   fantasai: I'll try and publish beta 1 next week, and we'll ask people
             to review them and make sure everyone is happy getting
             implementation reports based on them.
   fantasai: We plan to get implementation reports in before the F2F.
   fantasai: We plan to publish 2 betas, on a 3 week cycle.
   glazou: You tweeted something about reftests.  Is that related?
   fantasai: No, that was me working with moz stuff.

CSS2.1 Issues

   glazou: We have roughly 20 issues that are still undiscussed or lack a proposal.
   glazou: I think the first one up is issue 53.
   <plinss> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-53
   glazou: fantasai, this is something you posted.
   tabatkins: fantasai's proposal sounds great, that glyphs and whitespace
              in pre aren't altered for justification purposes.
   szilles: So that says that pre is more powerful than justification?
   glazou: Yes.
   fantasai: I don't quite understand why you can't justify pre-wrap,
             since it wraps, but I'd be fine with something that just
             said you can't justify pre.
   szilles: I thought that if the spacing are there even with the wrap,
            you might have columns that you don't want to go jagged.
   <sylvaing> you don't want to mess up Bert's ASCII art. Or Hixie's cat.
   szilles: It seems odd anyway to have both pre and justify on an element.
   tabatkins: You may have an inline with pre embedded in a justified element.
   ^^^ proposed solution
   fantasai: We usually write plaintext in monospace to get things to line
             up.  But if you're using pre-wrap, maybe you're just writing
             paragraphs, and would be okay with justifying.
   fantasai: pre-line is definitely wrong in the spec and should be fixed.
             But pre-wrap, I'm not sure of.
   fantasai: One thing we could say is that you're not required to justify
             in preformatted elements.
   fantasai: And then maybe in css3 text we can clarify it more precisely.
   glazou: I like that.
   bradk: Are the other text-align values okay?
   tabatkins: According to the proposal on the table, no, you can't
              right-align pre text.
   tabatkins: Nm, I'm misreading.
   szilles: But if I break lines in my email, you don't want to justify that.
   fantasai: Justification only affects lines that are soft-wrapped.
   glazou: Any particular objections to the proposal on the table?
   tabatkins: fantasai has a possible objection for the pre-wrap text.
   glazou: I'll ping Thunderbird people for an answer on what's acceptable
           to them, since it may affect email.
   ACTION Daniel: Ping Thunderbird for their input on how the changes to
                  the spec around pre/pre-wrap and justification may
                  affect email.
   fantasai: We can just say that justification isn't required.
   tabatkins: I'd prefer not having it be impl-defined.
   sylvaing: If the impls are disagreeing today, isn't it possible that
             email clients right now are having problems?
   tabatkins: Only if they're mixing it with justification, which I doubt
              anyone is right now.

   glazou: Next issue is 101, assigned to dbaron.

   Next one for the wg is 107.
   fantasai: The cases that this affects are where you're inheriting
             top/bottom/left/right, which almost nobody does.
   fantasai: The proposal is to correct the spec so that it's
             consistent with impls.
   glazou: And all impls do the same thing?
   fantasai: Seems so; Arron and I ran a few testcases.
   fantasai: And this is such a minor issue that I doubt it matters what
             we actually do, so long as it's specified.
   RESOLVED: Accept fantasai's proposal for resolving issue 107.

   glazou: Next is issue 110, on Tab.
   tabatkins: Haven't been able to write up a new proposal, sorry.

   glazou: Next is issue 120.
   fantasai: That'll take a while, since I have to go through the whole spec.
   fantasai: There are like 4 issues on me that I need to deal with still.

   glazou: Issue 138, on tab.
   tabatkins: I wrote a proposal some time ago, I just didn't put it on
              the wiki.  I've done that now.
   glazou: Everyone, read that and review for decision soon.

   glazou: Next is issue 145.
   tabatkins: I recall us discussing that during the BIDI meeting.
   fantasai: Conclusion was not to change the CSS2.1 spec's handling
             of forced line breaks.
   fantasai: Proposal on the table addressing a clarification issue
             around LS.
   RESOLVED: Accept fantasai's proposal for resolving issue 145.

   glazou: Next on the agenda is issue 149.
   szilles: I don't see any possible way to have this resolve any other way.
   glazou: At some point we have to decide, and I think the WG decided.
   sylvaing: I think the only problem here is that Bert is the gatekeeper
             of the spec.
   fantasai: The issue we haven't discussed here is how this affects
             Media Queries
   fantasai: Frex, on an iphone with a width 2in media query, when does
             it say yes/no?
   sylvaing: For example, at first a webpage on the iphone is zoomed out
             and full-size, but when you pinch and zoom in, you don't
             want the media query to suddenly change, since the webpage
             is still theoretically the same size.
   glazou: Can we just resolve this on media queries?
   sylvaing: If we accept the proposal now, we should go ahead and file
             an issue on media queries, since it's in CR right now.
   glazou: So, objections on the proposal?
   * fantasai abstains from this discussion
   RESOLVED: Accept fantasai's proposal to resolve issue 149.
   NOTED: Issue on MQ about possible problems with Media Queries,
          physical dimenions, and screen sizes.

   glazou: Next issue, 151.
   fantasai: SVG wants their presentational attributes treated as
             presentational hints, not as ua stylesheet rules.
   fantasai: But right now CSS defines otherwise, so they have to
             explicitly overrule the CSS2.1 spec.
   fantasai: This proposal alters the spec to allow XML languages to
             have their presentational attributes either be on the
             preshint level or the ua stylesheet level.
   RESOLVED: Accept fantasai's proposal to resolve issue 151.

   glazou: Next is issue 153.
   fantasai: If you're aligning the baseline of a box to anything,
             it's fairly well defined.  But for any other alignment,
             it's unclear which box of the element should be used.
   fantasai: For replaced elements we have interop on margin boxes.
   fantasai: But not so for inline non-replaced elements.
   fantasai: I could try and spend more time on getting a proper
             definition, but I don't know if we could impls in time
             for CR.
   * fantasai we should add a note that it would be defined in CSS3
<Zakim> +David_Baron
   dbaron: I was just looking at IRC, and I don't think it needs to
           be undefined.
   dbaron: I think it might have been clearer in CSS1, but I think
           it was well-defined somewhere.
   ACTION dbaron: Produce a proposal for issue 153.

   <glazou> current issue is 158
   <tabatkins> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Jun/0124.html
   <tabatkins> I think ^^^ is okay, but I'm still unsure of the exact
               desired rendering of a particular edge case, so I'm not
               sure if fantasai's suggestion fits or not.
   <tabatkins> http://dbaron.org/css/test/2007/0329-blog-examples/1
   <fantasai> I can dig up the emails from when we originally came up
              with that issue
   <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2007JanMar/0538.html
   glazou: I suggest you two take the discussion offline and clarify this
           between yourselves.

   glazou: Next issue is 159, for elika.
   fantasai: I haven't gotten to that yet.

   <fantasai> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-160
   glazou: Issue 160.  This should be easier to resolve.
   glazou: The proposal seems to make perfect sense.
   RESOLVED: Accept fantasai's proposal for resolving issue 160.

   glazou: Issue 166, on fantasai.
   <fantasai> Not done yet
   glazou: Clarify different uses of "property value" and "component value",
           and make a diff.
   fantasai: Haven't been able to get to that yet.

   glazou: Issue 167, backslash escapes.
   glazou: So, where's the end of a stylesheet, if you "end" one with
           a backslash?
   tabatkins: There isn't interop, so whatever we decide should be okay.
   tabatkins: I think it's just a matter of looking over Zack's proposed
              changes and ensuring they really do have only the minimal
              impact that he believes.
   ACTION Daniel: Look over Zack's proposal for issue 167, ensure that it
                  doesn't have any unwanted effects.

   glazou: Next issue, 170.
   glazou: dbaron has listed 5 possibilities to resolve it.
   dbaron: 6, counting the "leave it explicitly undefined" case.
   bradk: Is there any interop on this?
   ACTION Tab: Write some tests for issue 170, to see which option seems
               closest to impls.

   glazou: Next is issue 172.
   <tabatkins> I don't have a problem with it.  Table captions are rare in
               the first place, and table captions that would overflow are
               even more so.
   <bradk> I'm fine with the proposal
   ACTION fantasai: Propose wording for issue 172.

Meeting closed.
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2010 19:01:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:13:47 UTC