- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 02:15:33 -0700
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Summary: - Peter set up an agenda template for TPAC on the wiki - Reviewed status of CSS2.1 issues - RESOLVED: Accept fantasai's proposed text for CSS2.1 Issue 173 with option B - RESOLVED: Accept proposal for CSS2.1 Issue 203 - RESOLVED: Mark min/max as at-risk, and mark % in min/max as at-risk. (css3-values) - Reviewed Tab's proposal for counter style definitions http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0235.html - Discussed how to get implementation reports for CSS2.1 test suite ====== Full minutes below ====== Present: Tab Atkins David Baron John Daggett Arron Eicholz Elika Etemad Simon Fraser Sylvain Galineau Daniel Glazman Brad Kemper Håkon Wium Lie Peter Linss Steve Zilles <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/09/15-CSS-irc Scribe: TabAtkins Administrative -------------- glazou: We need a wiki page for agenda items during TPAC. glazou: Elika, can you set up a wiki page? plinss: Already done. <plinss> http://wiki.csswg.org/planning/tpac-2010 glazou: CSS 2.1 TestSuite. Deadline was Sep 15, where are we? fantasai: I'm planning to build the testsuite and publish it later today. fantasai: We'll call this one RC1. CSS2.1 Issues ------------- glazou: Issue 101, Tab sent an email that he wasn't ready. TabAtkins: I'll have it before next call. I can do it by Friday. glazou: Issue 154 is on Arron and John. <glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-154 arronei: 154 I've submitted a few images. I think they're correct, though Elika's called out a few things. I'll see today if they need any altering. arronei: We may not define all the terms that I use, but we use them extensively in the spec. arronei: We should probably define them. glazou: Action on everyone - review the images for 154. glazou: Next issue is 173, on Elika. <glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-173 fantasai: There's a proposal on the list that I sent last night. glazou: I think the first part is okay. We need to decide on the second part. <dbaron> what's the url? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0440.html glazou: [lists the options for the second part from the email] fantasai: I don't think either choice will end up doing much of anything anyway; if anyone's putting a linebreak in generated content they need to escape them anyway, and the spec uses \A all over the place for it. fantasai: So I don't think this is a compat or author issue, so we should just choose whichever option is easier for implementors. fantasai: I don't have a favored opinion. dbaron: I think we handle our generated content the same as DOM text, generally. arronei: Basically the same in IE. <dbaron> we could send it through a different path if we had to first, but preferable not to. glazou: So option B should match the current practice? fantasai: This does mean that it's impossible to represent a carriage return in a CSS document. TabAtkins: I doubt that's important for anyone ever, so it's okay. <glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-197 RESOLVED: For issue 173, accept part 1, accept option b for part 2. <glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-159 TabAtkins: I haven't had time to process the changes in this draft. glazou: I don't want to hold this forever, so please have review ready for next week. <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0191.html TabAtkins: There was discussion during the last telcon about the issue that Boris raised with the definition, where a runin is clearing one way and the block it runs into is clearing another way. fantasai: I posted a testcase to IRC and Arron looked at it. glazou: So what needs to be done? <glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-198 TabAtkins: We need a new proposal to address Boris' issue. I can do that; we have all the info we need for it. ACTION Tab: Post updated proposal to the list. <trackbot> Created ACTION-266 <glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-199 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0433.html Tab: Proposal I sent yesterday. I don't think it actually addresses the issue properly, though, so there are some options in the email for better solutions. TabAtkins: I just need someone to sanitycheck this for me. ACTION dbaron: Sanity-check the issue 199 proposal. <trackbot> Created ACTION-267 <glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-198 <fantasai> http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/saved/635 <fantasai> arronei - what were the test results for that? fantasai: Steve, you said during the meeting that there was a problem, but you couldn't remember what it was. <glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-203 TabAtkins: This needs layout people to look at this. TabAtkins: But elika, arronei, and arronei's coworker all looked at this together and thought it was probably good. dbaron: I believe the change is fine with me, too. RESOLVED: Accept fantasai's change for issue 203. CSS3 Values: min() and max() at risk ------------------------------------ <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0233.html glazou: Agenda item 3, what should we do with min()/max()? dbaron: All of the issues I found with min/max are issues with mixing % and lengths. dbaron: There were two ways to fix them - one was to remove min/max entirely, and the other was to not allow % in min. dbaron: There are cases where we reverse percentages for intrinsic widths. dbaron: So if you have "width:100px, margin-right:50%", its container is 200px to satisfy the conditions. dbaron: There's no sensical way to do that with min/max, because there are likely multiple solutions and it's difficult to distinguish between them. dbaron: There were other issues that I'd have to dig up. TabAtkins: I say we do what fantasai suggests and mark it as at-risk. szilles: That means we'd have to drop the feature, though. We wouldn't have the choice to just drop % from the feature. howcome: We can just list both. howcome: Also you wanted to move this to Last Call, right? dbaron: Yeah. howcome: And you're willing to be co-editor? dbaron: Sure. howcome: I think the two of us should review it through. fantasai: Agreed. RESOLVED: Mark min/max as at-risk, and mark % in min/max as at-risk. CSS3 Lists ---------- <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0235.html glazou: Topic, new list-style-types. <glazou> +1 !!! TabAtkins: I've taken over the list module. The module extends the number of style types from 6 or 7 to around 100, but it still ends up still missing a number of minority languages. <glazou> http://www.w3.org/mid/AANLkTimg9ULp9vS212+G4f5-Oav63p=Eu+EadAzQmSyk@mail.gmail.com <dbaron> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0381.html TabAtkins: Rather than just forever extending the module with new types and still missing things, I've proposed that we can address all but 1 of the style-types with a set of 7 algorithms, which we can then expose to the user so they can create their own list-styles. dbaron: I don't think you can get Hebrew simply like that. TabAtkins: Actually, it's fairly simple to do. I have it written down already. glazou: Including the forbidden words and such? TabAtkins: Yes to the 16/17 thing. The other forbidden words aren't forbidden in a list context, according to some hebrew i18n people at google. CSS2.1 Implementation Reports ----------------------------- sylvaing: Is everyone okay with the 10/15 deadline for implementation reports? TabAtkins: Google should be cool with that. dbaron: Not sure if we'll be able to. It's an awful lot of work. * fantasai has some ideas, let's discuss with roc later this week sylvaing: Can you be more specific? fantasai: It's a question of resources at Mozilla, I think David said before. fantasai: I think that Tab and I can possibly help if we can dig up HP's system and ask for volunteers to help with the report, because then it's easy for one person to submit a small number of results. sylvaing: So it sounds like we can get an impl report from Google. Maybe from Moz. What about Opera? howcome: I can't commit to a date. <bradk> What about Apple? <smfr> i imagine chrome's results would be equivalent to apple's (both webkit) glazou: I'm a bit puzzled, because this is the last effort of a long line. Everything depends on this last effort. <bradk> I thought there was some forking between Safari and Chrome glazou: All the browser vendors are interested in seeing CSS2.1 become a Rec, but it *cannot* happen without this effort. <smfr> bradk: very little at the css/layout level <arronei> Actually Chrome and Safari have different results. If Apple can also submit an implementation report that would be nice. glazou: I understand the resource issues, but it's very important we get this. It would be a very bad signal if we are late with CSS2.1 just because of impl reports. <smfr> arronei: probably due to different snapshots of the webkit code JohnJansen: At the FtF, Moz said it would be okay to do impl reports 30 days after test suite completion. dbaron: I'm not sure those two discussions were related. sylvaing: So should we move the date or what? It sounds like we had agreement on the date, but apparently only 2 browsers are going to make it. fantasai: I think we should leave the date as the target, and I'll talk with Tab after the call to see what we can do. dbaron: Also I think that looking at an impl report will provide feedback on the test suite. sylvaing: Right, but we need impl report first. glazou: I'd like to remind everyone that if we shift a lot, we'll be in very bad shape in the w3c. glazou: We publicly said that the impl reports will be ready on the 15 of oct. w3c staff read it. glazou: So if we shift, we cannot shift a lot. We still need to be in PR before the end of the year. glazou: Listening to what david said, I'm scared if it's still possible. sylvaing: At TPAC we shouldn't be worrying about 2.1, we should be taking it to PR. I'm scared that it won't happen now. glazou: So let's keep the timing right now, and see what Tab and Elika can produce by next week. sylvaing: And bring this up first thing next call. Meeting closed. <dbaron> Is it OK to test a beta for the implementation report? <glazou> yes <glazou> as soon as it's publically available <glazou> and it is <fantasai> tabatkins: datafile - http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/testinfo.data <fantasai> harness info: http://wiki.csswg.org/test/harness
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2010 09:16:15 UTC