- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 01:47:06 -0700
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Summary: - RESOLVED: Accept Bert's changes for CSS2.1 Issue 121 with slight edit suggested by dbaron in the minutes. - RESOLVED: Accept fantasai's proposal for CSS2.1 Issue 158 - Reviewed proposal for CSS2.1 Issue 158; more edit work needed. - RESOLVED: Accept fantasai's proposal for CSS2.1 Issue 172 - RESOLVED: Accept fantasai's proposal for CSS2.1 Issue 187 - RESOLVED: Accept updated wording for CSS2.1 Issue 187 - Reviewed CSS2.1 Issue 197: need test case results and proposed text. - Reviewed CSS2.1 Issue 199 ====== Full minutes below ====== Present: Tab Atkins David Baron Bert Bos Arron Eicholz Elika Etemad Simon Fraser Sylvain Galineau Daniel Glazman Brad Kemper Håkon Wium Lie Peter Linss David Singer Steve Zilles <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/09/08-CSS-irc <glazou> dbaron: do you have plans to extend -moz-*-gradient() to the CSS 3 values of <position> ? <glazou> (as in CSS 3 Images spec...) <dbaron> you mean the new background-position syntax? <dbaron> glazou, ^ <dbaron> I think we'd do that at the same point we implemented that new background-position syntax <dbaron> which we should probably do <dbaron> but don't have immediate plans for <dbaron> (I'm not even sure if there's a bug on it.) <glazou> ok thx The bridge doesn't seem to like dbaron's phone today. <dbaron> I guess I'll try calling in from home next week. Scribe: Tab Administrative -------------- plinss: Anything to add to the agenda? Bert: I sent an email a few minutes ago about a workshop in Japan that I'd like to have on the agenda. CSS2.1 Issues ------------- plinss: Open issues. First up, 101. plinss: Says we were waiting for a testcase from Arron? arronei: Test case was created. plinss: Anyone had a chance to review the testcase yet? TabAtkins: I didn't know about it had been done yet. arronei: I just created them in the last two days. I just sent an email about them to the list. dbaron: There were testcases in the original email. Is this testcase for the rule 3, 5, or 7 case? dbaron: There were already testcases, so I'm not sure why this issue had testcase creation assigned to it. I think what was needed was proposed text to adjust the spec. plinss: From the minutes, all that was discussed was testcases. dbaron: I had an action item to write text, but I said I couldn't get to it for a little while. Arron volunteered to write some test cases instead. plinss: Will you or someone else be able to step in and write some text for this? dbaron: Probably not in the next few weeks, so if someone else can do it that would be good. TabAtkins: I can try and write text for it. plinss: Next issue, 121. Bert sent in a proposal on this one. dbaron: I responded to this a few minutes ago. I'm fine with the changes, though I'm not sure the "Generally..." bit is true. <dbaron> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Aug/0411.html <dbaron> is the proposal dbaron: I'm not really objecting to the change, I just think some of the wording adjustments in the proposal I don't think are quite right. dbaron: I think it would help if it clarified that the paragraph in question had only one font; then I think it'd be true. <fantasai> Bert, that should be s/block-level box/block container/ Bert: That's what the "etc" was meant to cover, but I can make it explicit. dbaron: That might be worth mentioning. <Bert> (Fantasai, isn't that already in the issues list?) RESOLVED: Accept Bert's changes for issue 121, with the slight edit suggested by dbaron. plinss: Next up is issue 129. * fantasai notes that going through all Bert's edits here is not a good use of time. We should focus on issues assigned ot the WG Bert: I need to merge 129 with 139. It's straightforward; there's an email from Yves. plinss: issue 142. fantasai: Could we talk about issues that need WG discussion, rather than overseeing Bert's edits? * dsinger yeah, I thought we were basically done with 2.1 at the ftf, and that's all that's on the agenda? plinss: I'm trying to just go over the ones that looked like they needed work. fantasai: But we only have half an hour, and have a bunch of issues to look at. plinss: let's skip ahead then. plinss: 158? <dbaron> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Aug/0458.html <dbaron> I'm fine with the edits TabAtkins: I'm fine with this edit, though there's a seperate note about something later in this thread in issue 203. Bert: I think it's fine. RESOLVED: Accept fantasai's edits for issue 158. * oyvind notes a typo... "the where" plinss: Issue 159. fantasai: This should be completely editorial. I've discussed it with Arron and Michael. dbaron: What says that margins are non-adjoining due to min-height? fantasai: "The top and bottom margins of a box with used height other than 0". dbaron: This is a change to say that max-height has an effect. If max-height is 0 and height is non-0, the margins would collapse here, while that wasn't true before. TabAtkins: Any clue what impls actually *do* with that? arronei: I don't have a testcase specifically for that. dbaron: I think it would be good to write a testcase to see what impls actually do. <fantasai> http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C!DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0A%3Cdiv%20style%3D%22border%3A%20solid%3B%22%3E%0A%20%20%3Cdiv%20style%3D%22margin%3A%202em%3B%20max-height%3A%200%3B%20height%3A%205em%22%3E%0A%20%20%3C%2Fdiv%3E%0A%3C%2Fdiv%3E fantasai: Opera, Konqueror, Chrome, and Firefox do not collapse margins if max-height is 0 and height is non-0. arronei: I see consistency across the board here. dbaron: There's a bullet point about "bottom margin of element and bottom margin of last in-flow child" and the one after that - the problem with those two is that they change the latter changes the conditions of the former in the situation where all the margins collapse with each other. fantasai: I don't understand. dbaron: The question is, does the bottom margin of a last child collapse with the bottom margin of its parent? dbaron: In particular, the case where the parent has non-zero min-height, but auto height. fantasai: The last condition requires no children. dbaron: Then there's a discontinuity if you have children or not, which is odd and I think might be a change from the spec. fantasai: The fourth bullet has to be changed to say 0 min-height and auto height, but I don't know how that'll interact with stuff from the CSS3 box model. fantasai: I'll update the proposal to explicitly fix that part. plinss: Anything else with this one? plinss: Next, issue 172. fantasai: I did make a normative change, about honoring explicit widths. dbaron: Seems fine. RESOLVED: Accept fantasai's edits for issue 172. plinss: Issue 173? fantasai: I've worked on it, but it's a mess. TabAtkins: Also, Henri responded to it this morning, so there's still work to be done on it. plinss: We'll come back to it. plinss: Issue 187? <TabAtkins> I like the text now, though I have no clue about it matching reality or whatnot. <fantasai> Reality seems kind of confused when last I tested it :) * bradk has no idea about this one Bert: I like it. Seems precise. <bradk> :) RESOLVED: Accept fantasai's edits for issue 187. plinss: Issue 191. [Reviewing proposed text to implement previous resolution.] TabAtkins: I agree with this. arronei: Do we say anywhere that markers create a line box? fantasai: We say they *may*. plinss: Issue 192. plinss: At the ftf we decided the 3rd issue was invalid, but there was some pushback on that? dbaron: There's a *lot* of references in Anton's email, that you have to read in the right order to know what is being talked about. TabAtkins: I'll produce an "executive summary" of all the references, so we can know what's being referred to exactly. plinss: Issue 197. fantasai: Boris just replied to this and gave an example: <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0198.html TabAtkins: That's why we don't hoist inline clearing up to its containing block normally. Can't recall why we did it in this case. fantasai: Because we thought that's what the prose was trying to say. TabAtkins: Since IE is the only browser that implements run-in, can we get a quick test-case to see what it does here? <fantasai> http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C!DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0A%0A%3Cdiv%20style%3D%22float%3A%20left%3B%20border%3A%201em%20solid%20fuchsia%3B%22%3E%3C%2Fdiv%3E%3Cdiv%20style%3D%22float%3A%20right%3B%20border%3A%201em%20solid%20aqua%3B%22%3E%3C%2Fdiv%3E%0A%20%20%20%3Cspan%20style%3D%22display%3A%20run-in%3B%20clear%3A%20right%3B%22%3ERun-in%3C%2Fspan%3E%0A%20%20%20%3Cdiv%20style%3D%22clear%3A%20left%22%3EParagraph%3C%2Fdiv%3E%0A <oyvind> we do too... arronei: I think there's going to need to be a few testcases for this. I can put them together so we can see them next week. <fantasai> http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C!DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0A%0A%3Cdiv%20style%3D%22float%3A%20left%3B%20border%3A%202em%20solid%20fuchsia%3B%22%3E%3C%2Fdiv%3E%3Cdiv%20style%3D%22float%3A%20right%3B%20border%3A%201em%20solid%20aqua%3B%22%3E%3C%2Fdiv%3E%0A%20%20%20%3Cspan%20style%3D%22display%3A%20run-in%3B%20clear%3A%20right%3B%22%3ERun-in%3C%2Fspan%3E%0A%20%20%20%3Cdiv%20style%3D%22clear%3A%20left%22%3EParagraph%3C%2Fdiv%3E%0A%0A%3Cdiv%20style%3D%22border%3A%20solid%3B%20clear%3A%20both%22%3E%3C%2Fdiv%3E%0A%0A%0A%3Cdiv%20style%3D%22float%3A%20left%3B%20border%3A%201em%20solid%20fuchsia%3B%22%3E%3C%2Fdiv%3E%3Cdiv%20style%3D%22float%3A%20right%3B%20border%3A%202em%20solid%20aqua%3B%22%3E%3C%2Fdiv%3E%0A%20%20%20%3Cspan%20style%3D%22display%3A%20run-in%3B%20clear%3A%20right%3B%22%3ERun-in%3C%2Fspan%3E%0A%20%20%20%3Cdiv%20style%3D%22clear%3A%20left%22%3EParagraph%3C%2Fdiv%3E%0A%0A%0A <oyvind> (opera matches IE8 on those as far as I can see) TabAtkins: Can we do the rest of these tests off-call? <fantasai> arronei: http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C!DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0A%0A%3Cdiv%20style%3D%22float%3A%20left%3B%20border%3A%202em%20solid%20fuchsia%3B%22%3E%3C%2Fdiv%3E%3Cdiv%20style%3D%22float%3A%20right%3B%20border%3A%201em%20solid%20aqua%3B%22%3E%3C%2Fdiv%3E%0A%20%20%20%3Cspan%20style%3D%22display%3A%20run-in%3B%20clear%3A%20right%3B%22%3ERun-in%3C%2Fspan%3E%0A%20%20%20%3Cdiv%20style%3D%22clear%3A%20left%3B%20border%3A%20solid%20silver%3B%22%3EParagraph%3C%2Fdiv%3E%0A%0A%3Cdiv%20style%3D%22border%3A%20solid%3B%20clear%3A%20both%22%3E%3C%2Fdiv%3E%0A%0A%0A%3Cdiv%20style%3D%22float%3A%20left%3B%20border%3A%201em%20solid%20fuchsia%3B%22%3E%3C%2Fdiv%3E%3Cdiv%20style%3D%22float%3A%20right%3B%20border%3A%202em%20solid%20aqua%3B%22%3E%3C%2Fdiv%3E%0A%20%20%20%3Cspan%20style%3D%22display%3A%20run-in%3B%20clear%3A%20right%3B%22%3ERun-in%3C%2Fspan%3E%0A%20%20%20%3Cdiv%20style%3D%22clear%3A%20left%3B%20border%3A%20solid%20silver%22%3EParagraph%3C%2Fdiv%3E%0A%0A%0A <fantasai> arronei: Question is, does clearance move the silver box in both cases? <fantasai> arronei: Or the silver box in one case and the text in the other? plinss: Issue 199. TabAtkins: I sent an email to the list yesterday to define that lineboxes are *not* created in the relevant situations, rather than the somewhat circular prose currently in the spec. <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0190.html - Tab's proposal <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0194.html may also be helpful * fantasai thinks we should mark run-in at risk * fantasai is ok with Tab's proposal * oyvind would like a definition of in-flow <fantasai> oyvind, not out-of-flow :) dbaron: If a linebox isn't created, what are the positions of the things that would have otherwise been there? -smfr fantasai: You could instead say that such lineboxes are only used to calculate the position of boxes that would be in the linebox, but not for any other purpose. TabAtkins: I will send an updated proposal that says something to that effect today. fantasai: Last thing was issue 203, which is a testable change in margin collapsing. Arron and I talked with Michael in Oslo and it seemed that implementations actually agreed on it. plinss: Okay, we'll talk about that next week. Meeting closed. <oyvind> fantasai, I'm not sure if you're joking or if that's actually defined somewhere :) <fantasai> oyvind: that's actually the definition <oyvind> but is it assumed to be obvious what counts as "out-of-flow"? <oyvind> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#img-floateg "non-positioned in-flow blocks" <fantasai> oyvind: if you want to file an issue, you must send an email <oyvind> yeah, I'll do that tomorrow or something
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2010 08:47:48 UTC