- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 08:22:15 -0700
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Summary:
- Discussed status of CSS2.1 edits, test suite publications
- RESOLVED: Accept szilles' edits regarding floats and runins, but
mark the float/runin interaction as at-risk for CSS2.1
Issue 199: http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-198
- Discussed liaison with EPUB and the challenge of meeting their
schedule.
- RESOLVED: Publish a new WD of CSS3 Text.
- Discussed status of CSS3 Color and its Disposition of Comments
====== Full minutes below ======
Present:
Tab Atkins
Bert Bos
John Daggett
Arron Eicholz
Elika J. Etemad
Simon Fraser
Sylvain Galineau
Daniel Glazman
Koji Ishii (Antenna House)
Brad Kemper
Håkon Wium Lie
Chris Lilley
Peter Linss
Kenny Luck via IRC (W3C Staff observer)
Steve Zilles
<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/09/29-CSS-irc
<glazou> note to self: extra item http://www.w3.org/mid/4C9CC808.7010402@nokia.com
ScribeNick: TabAtkins
Administrative
--------------
glazou: Request from Art Barstow for extra agenda item.
<glazou> http://www.w3.org/mid/4C9CC808.7010402@nokia.com
CSS2.1 Status
-------------
glazou: Now, CSS2.1. Where are we with the test suite, IR, etc.?
glazou: First, test suite.
fantasai: There were a bunch of edits checked in by gsnedders about
updating metadata.
fantasai: And some other fixes.
fantasai: I'm not certain every issue has been addressed. If requested,
I could publish a snapshot today.
glazou: What about IR?
smfr: I anticipate that Apple will be able to do test reports.
smfr: I just need ot know which version to test - we probably won't be
able to do this more than once.
arronei: If we were to publish an update, we'll list only the differences
from the previous, so you could just run today's testsuite and
then run the handful of tests from the new suite.
smfr: That would be fine.
glazou: So for now take the 20100917 version, linked form the testsuite page.
glazou: I pinged Opera and Moz to ask if we could have an impl report
from them.
howcome: We should be able to do it, I just need to get the right
people internally.
glazou: When do Opera and Apple think they could submit it?
howcome: That's a much harder question to answer. ^_^
glazou: I understand. Mid november, that would be fine. Mid Feb,
not so fine.
smfr: We anticipate by the end of Oct, possibly by mid Oct.
howcome: I can't give a date at this point.
* ChrisL can run the tests for Mozilla if that will help; end October
sounds realistic. Great to head Opera and Apple stepping up
glazou: Understood; it's not super urgent right now, but we need more
IRs more tests that aren't passing in at least 2 yet.
smfr: I implemented a harness that lets you run through the test suite,
with a few extra features.
glazou: Great; if you could submit it to the group or www-style it
could be useful.
glazou: I would like to warn all members of the WG that some tests
require a change of character encoding for the doc, and
some browsers reload when they do that.
smfr: Do we have a flag for tests that require a change in character
encoding?
TabAtkins: I don't believe so.
fantasai: Do you mean changing character encoding via UI, via HTTP,
via @charset, via <meta>...?
glazou: The ones I was mentioning were about changing it in the UI.
<ChrisL> The ones where user interaction is required
fantasai: I think we should mark those as "need user interaction"
or do a separate flag.
smfr: I'd prefer a separate flag.
fantasai: Okay.
fantasai: Do we need one for general "needs special settings", or
should we split it out?
* glazou is really about opera and apple IRs; thanks guys
<glazou> really glad
smfr: I think it's okay to share a flag with user styles.
fantasai: Okay. I can't do that tonight, but I'll look into it.
* ChrisL did we hear about IR from Microsoft?
glazou: Enough about the test suite. Bert, you had a list of edits to do.
Bert: I didn't do as much as I had hoped to do. I've done 6, and
I think 20 left.
Bert: I assume I can do the remaining edits in 2 weeks.
glazou: Anything blocking any of these?
Bert: I don't think so.
Bert: But I need to review some of fantasai's reviews of my edits.
TabAtkins: I will have the rest of my 2.1 issues on the list by today.
szilles: I sent a message to the list yesterday pointing to the issue
I had open.
<ChrisL> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-198
<Bert> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0674.html
<ChrisL> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0674.html
glazou: Can you summarize, Steve?
szilles: The problem is that, with runins, floats inside the runins -
how do they relate to floats that precede and follow the runin?
* fantasai proposes marking run-in at risk
szilles: I think we decided in Oslo that runins that run in are
rendered/treated as a child of the block. So a float
that originally came between the runin and the block is
now treated as preceding the runin.
glazou: MS, do you think run-in is sufficiently bad to be at risk?
arronei: runins are pretty much fully implemented in IE and Opera.
A few iffy areas around tables, but otherwise the 100+
tests we have are passed by both, and by Safari for many
of them.
glazou: So, Elika, is it worth putting it at risk?
fantasai: Eh, if we have interop in everything but floats, that's
probably good enough for most people.
szilles: That's separate from the issue at hand, though, about
runin and float interaction.
glazou: If it ends up being at risk, we can just mark it undefined.
Bert: I have two things to say.
Bert: First is that the "first line" bit is complicated.
Bert: It's not wrong, it's just unclear I think.
szilles: I'm okay with juts saying "rendered as an inline (refer
to section XX)".
Bert: Second was a typo.
szilles: There were comments from bz, but they were just saying
that the general area about how floats are painted is
undefined, but the actual part I defined is fine.
<ChrisL> Its is better to me to have normative text included and
to put the subfeature at risk
<ChrisL> rather than the whole feature
<ChrisL> or having no definition and thus no guidance for implementors
<glazou> yes
<bradk> agreed
RESOLVED: Accept szilles' edits regarding floats and runins, but
mark the float/runin interaction as at-risk.
[Chris is having technical problems]
glazou: Next agenda item would be about CSS3 Color, but tantek
isn't on the call and we can't hear Chris.
glazou: We'll skip it and come back.
<ChrisL> noo
Style Attributes Spec
---------------------
glazou: Next is about the style attribute.
glazou: Bert, I see you sent a request for PR, anything else need to happen?
Bert: No, we just need to wait for the telcon.
EPUB Liaison
------------
glazou: next is about epub laiason. Bert?
Bert: w3c has a laiason with the epub group. It's handled by
MikeSmith on this side.
Bert: They've asked us to provide more liaison with CSS.
Bert: They've shown their schedule for their expected spec, and
they seem to be in quite a hurry to get it published.
jdaggett: If you dig around in their doc, their set of requirements
is fairly jaw-dropping - hyphenation, encoding schemes, etc.
Bert: Good question. I don't have one. I'm asking for how best to
coordinate with them; we should also discuss what our goal for
coordinating with them as well.
Bert: We should probably tell them that their goal is too high -
we can't finish that much of CSS3 in time, but we can do
parts of it.
howcome: hyphenation is finished, for example.
Bert: We have good proposals, can they be brought to CR in time?
howcome: I think so, if we fork it out separately.
fantasai: I think I agree with howcome that we can get hyphenation
to CR. I'm also trying to get the rest of CSS3 Text to
CR, because many of the features they want are in that draft.
Bert: jdaggett, you said there were more features?
jdaggett: Vertical text - we're still arguing about the fundamental
properties. It needs to be well-defined by the end of the year.
jdaggett: To meet the epub schedule, at least.
fantasai: We will have two impls by the end of the year.
jdaggett: Impls of what?
fantasai: what Antenna House and what Hyatt wrote for Webkit will
be compatible.
jdaggett: What have we agreed upon?
fantasai: AH and Hyatt have implemented logical margins.
howcome: That doens't mean that's what should be defined.
jdaggett: Every time we discuss this we get to a point, but don't
put things into a spec.
szilles: What we agreed in Oslo was to see what your proposal was
and then discuss it at TPAC.
fantasai: Yes.
Bert: I'd like to go back to coordination with IDPF. Koji, what's
your role in there?
kojiishi: I'm willing to take over what Shinyu has been doing.
kojiishi: If you have anything else you expect the IPDF laiason to
do beyond what Shinyu has been doing, I can do that.
Bert: You plan to participate in both our meetings and IPDF meetings?
kojiishi: Yes.
kojiishi: EGLS is a globalization effort within IPDF. I talk with
him often, but I'm otherwise not very familiar with it.
kojiishi: I can talk to my contact in IPDF for what they really expect.
howcome: I think something that might help is to have a set of use-cases.
howcome: I think what EPUB is looking for is perhaps simpler than the
problem we're seeing on our side.
kojiishi: Vertical text and globalization are on our radar. Hyphenation
I'm not tracking right now.
howcome: That's fine. I think the biggest issue we have is vertical text.
If we could get proposed use-cases - typical things they need
to solve - then we could more easily find a solution for that.
<kojiishi> http://code.google.com/p/epub-revision/wiki/EGLS_solutions
szilles: There is a requirements doc that epub is putting out.
kojiishi: They haven't finished the prioritization quite yet. They
should have it be their meeting on Oct 5th.
kojiishi: I'll be attending that meeting.
kojiishi: Hopefully we'll find out what we're missing and what items
are high priority.
szilles: I believe Adobe will also have a rep on that meeting, though not me.
<kennyluck> SZilles: Yes, Yamamoto-san from Adobe
Bert: Would it be possible to have reps come to our meeting in Lyon
in November?
glazou: That would be fine with me.
Bert: That we could probably ask via MikeSmith.
Action Bert: Ping MikeSmith about getting IDPF people at TPAC.
<trackbot> Created ACTION-268
glazou: We need a laiason; the deadlines of CSS and EPUB don't quite match;
we need a closer discussion with EPUB people to really decide
something.
ChrisL: Are the EPUB deadlines hard, or are they just a guess?
szilles: I believe they're actually trying to operate toward those deadlines.
* sylvaing i.e. are they like implementation report deadlines,
or are they deadlines ? :)
szilles: EPUB primarily wants to base their work on existing standards.
szilles: There was something that Sharp and related companies put
together a while back that they're pushing to use.
szilles: The real problem is having something in the near term that
would better align with w3c's tech than some of the alternatives.
szilles: That's partly why the deadlines are so short.
szilles: There are certainly a substantial number of people in the EPUB
discussion that would prefer an approach that was closer to w3c
standards, if they could.
bradk: Can they align with working drafts, perhaps with an epub prefix?
Or do they have to have PRs?
<ChrisL> if they dont get the featurs they need from w3c specs would
they drop the feature, extend the deadline, or pick a different
source of standards?
szilles: If they like what they think they're going to get, they may
accept them before CR, because there's really nothing else
out there right now except ISO standards.
kojiishi: I think generally they need CR.
<kojiishi> http://code.google.com/p/epub-revision/wiki/CSS3Relations
<kennyluck> they might invent their own ->
http://code.google.com/p/epub-revision/wiki/CSS3Relations
kojiishi: As far as I know they haven't decided yet, and they'll be
discussing this in Taiwan on Oct 5th.
* fantasai would like to squeeze in a request to publish css3-text
before the end of the call
szilles: So, I believe that fantasai and friends are trying to produce
a draft we can look at and discuss by TPAC, to see if we have
enough consensus to move ahead.
CSS3 Text
---------
jdaggett: There are two specs here - CSS3 Text and CSS3 Writing Modes.
szilles: fantasai, you were doing Text, not Writing Modes, right?
* glazou wants the 7 last minutes on css3-color even if this discussion
is not finished
fantasai: Right; I've made a lot of edits to Writing Modes, but it's
not ready to publish right now. CSS3 Text is ready to
publish as a WD.
fantasai: The current CSS3 Text draft is quite outdated. The new draft
has addressed nearly all the issues raised with it.
fantasai: I'd like to get a new draft published before the Taiwan
meeting next week.
<Zakim> +Tantek
jdaggett: i'm fine with publishing a new draft of CSS3 Text
<glazou> 30 seconds before next item plase
<glazou> please
szilles: I haven't looked at the new Text. Has it changed?
fantasai: Yes, a lot. [lists changes]
<tantek> also for publishing new draft of CSS3 Text
<glazou> TIME
* ChrisL pointer to editors draft?
jdaggett: Were there any objections, or can we resolve to publish?
glazou: let's resolve to publish and move one
<kojiishi> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-text/
RESOLVED: Publish a new WD of CSS3 Text.
* fantasai thanks jdaggett !
* jdaggett np
CSS3 Color
----------
glazou: Now, CSS3 Color.
<ChrisL> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-color/issues-lc-2008.html
<tantek> Thanks much Chris!
ChrisL: I spent today making a Disposition of Comments. It's not
in a great shape.
ChrisL: We need what the WG did, what the commenter responded, etc.
ChrisL: We have at least 3 where the commenter said they weren't
happy, a bunch where they didn't respond, and 1 from the
XSL WG where we didn't respond to them at all (we made edits
but didn't tell them).
ChrisL: We mostly agreed with them, which makes it easy.
ChrisL: I sent out a few others asking for confirmation.
tantek: The DoC is looking good, thanks for writing it up.
ChrisL: I didn't get the biblio updated, but I will.
tantek: Did you see the most recent followup regarding scRGB?
ChrisL: There was a recent discussion about adding a bunch of ICC spaces.
ChrisL: Should we treat it as an LC comment or what?
tantek: I think it's out of scope right now. We should reject it for
now, and have it as possible functionality for CSS4 Color.
tantek: Does the DoC look good otherwise?
ChrisL: The XSLWG response we should probably wait a week or so for.
tantek: So we're pretty happy with the DoC, and we'll give commenters
a week or two to respond. What's next?
ChrisL: Then we produce a director's ???, showing that we exit CR correctly.
glazou: Any normative dependency on CSS2.1?
ChrisL: yes.
glazou: So it'll be at the same state as CSS3 Selectors?
ChrisL: Yeah. It precludes REC, but not PR.
glazou: So yeah, we need to push CSS2.1 quick.
ChrisL: Selectors already has "provisional Rec" contingent on CSS2.1
going to Rec.
Meeting closed.
<tantek> ChrisL - how much time did you want to give commenters to
follow-up? is a week sufficient or would you be more
comfortable with 2 weeks?
<ChrisL> I think a week is reasonable. Will talk with xsl fo staff contact
<tantek> ok
<RRSAgent> http://www.w3.org/2010/09/29-CSS-minutes.html fantasai
Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 15:22:55 UTC