- 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