- From: John Jansen <John.Jansen@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:13:16 +0000
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of fantasai > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 2:16 AM > To: www-style@w3.org > Subject: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2010-09-15 > > 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 John Jansen > > <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 Wednesday, 22 September 2010 14:15:33 UTC