W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2010

RE: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2010-09-15

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>
Message-ID: <C340671BECD4364E8F9EBA27E8E2313219D2F6FB@DF-M14-04.exchange.corp.microsoft.com>
> -----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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:49:47 UTC