W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2011

[CSS WG] Minutes and Resolutions 2011-02-23

From: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 18:49:36 +0100
To: W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <201102241849.36788.bert@w3.org>

    The WG looked at the handful of remaining test cases for CSS 2.1
    that don't have two passes yet. Some are no doubt invalid, some will
    need careful study at the ftf.

    The upcoming ftf will have some extra guests to talk about layout
    grids and non-rectangular flows. The one after that should have a
    forum right before or after it to meet with Japanese designers and


      - Resolved: Accept proposed edit for issue 214.
      - Conditionally resolved: Accept Tab's proposal for issue 224,
        pending review of tests by Elika.

====== Full minutes below ======


          David Singer, Peter Linss, Sylvain Galineau, David Baron, John
          Jansen, Elika Etemad, Arron Eicholz, Brad Kemper, Simon Fraser,
          Koji Ishi, Bert Bos, Ted O'Connor, Tab Atkins





     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]1. CSS2.1 Issues / Test Status Update
         2. [5]2. March F2F
         3. [6]3. Tokyo F2F / Workshop
         4. [7]4. List-style-image

1. CSS2.1 Issues / Test Status Update

   PL: Looking for data on block tests. Nothing happened there? We need to
       get this finished. My deadline is the ftf.
   SG: Can we talk at the ftf?
   PL: Wrap-up beforehand would be perfect, otherwise at ftf. Issue 205?
   EE: Can we postpone for a few minutes? Need my computer…
   PL: Issue 207?
   EE: Not looked at margin collapsing yet. Sent a proposal on some other
   PL: Issue 214? There is a proposed edit.
   SG: Would any of the edits require test changes?
   PL: I think the tests already changed.
   EE: Don't think there is anything open anymore agaist the issues list.
   AE: Didn't find any to change.
   PL: Accept edits for 214?
   <dbaron> (which is the URL plinss pasted above)
   RESOLUTION: edit for 214 accepted.
   BB: I have made a raw list of comments that were sent to www-style.
       Anybody interested in it?
   EE: Can you add them to the wiki?
   PL: The other issues on CSS 2.1 are also on the wiki.
   BB: I find the wiki not really handy. Hard to edit and not easy to see
       which issues are open and closed.
   PL: Let's not switch tools for now.
   SG: What needs to be done for next week in the tests? is there page
       that lists what remains to be done?
   JJ: Should be on the two links given in the agenda.
   SG: A single wiki page would be handy.
   PL: It seems a few issues are complex enough that we need the ftf for
       them. But mostly we are waiting for enough implementations.
   JJ: What does that mean for CSS 2.1? Will CSS 2.1 just sit there until
       a suitable beta is published?
   PL: In theory, yes. We can change the spec if necessary.
   SG: Are we planning to add any test cases for currently open issues?
   PL: That was not my intention. I think we decided to close the test
       suite some time ago. We will have errata, a snapshot of the testsuite,
       and keep editing it. No additional tests. Maybe just if we have a
       substantive change with absolutely not coverage in the test suite…

2. March F2F

   PL: There is a wiki page for the agenda.
   <dbaron> [10]http://wiki.csswg.org/planning/mountain-view-2011
   <dbaron> [11]http://www.w3.org/Style/Group/2011/MountainView
   SG: We have some extra MS people coming for layout/grid stuff.
   PL: A new member from Adobe as well. Interested in “regions” and
       flowing text between them. I'm hoping they can attend.
   TA: Google Chrome also will have a meeting on layout. They may not be
       at the ftf itself, but I will be at both meetings.
   SF: We're also interested in the flow regions from Adobe.
   PL: Overlap with templates and other things. Good opportunity for
       synergy. Please post other agenda items on the wiki.
   EE: Some css3-text issues. Please raise any other issues soon. Before
       April. With Koji trying to resolve all known issues. But expecting more
       than one Last Call anyway. There are still open issues we know about.
       But please mention any others soon.
   SG: Tuesday would be good for layout, regions and related. So the extra
       MS people can come that day.
   PL: Can you mention on the wiki what issues you like grouped? Then we
       can do agenda planning.

3. Tokyo F2F / Workshop

   PL: Some discussion about a workhop.
   TA: Good idea, as said on the thread. Some sort of impromptu meeting.
   KI: Some informal forum is preferred.
   BB: Agreed. We don't have a sponsor for a costly event.
   PL: Where would this be?
   KI: So should I respond that we prefer some sort of informal forum?
   PL: Yes, that sounds good. I'm only available before our ftf, not
       after. May 30 or 31 is possible.
   KI: Maybe I can ask for vote? I think EE preferred after the ftf?
   BB: Preference for before, but can probably make after as well.
   DB: It depends on what flights I can find.
   TA: I already have my flights and can be there after. Otherwise have to
   SG: Prefer before.
   PL: Seems it's about 50-50… Our ftf dates are firm. I guess.
   TA: Yes, as I said, I already booked my flight…
   PL: Koji, any idea when we can know when and where?
   KI: Date is up to us. The place I can ask around. Probably Keio, maybe
       also NTT. I'm not so worried about that. How do we decide the date as
       soon as possible?
   EE: Wiki?
   PL: We can at least start a wiki to collect ideas for the contents. We
       can give people a week and decide the date next week . who would be
       attending, apart from us?
   KI: Some people who want to meet us. And it depends on the topics. EPUB
       people also.
   <fantasai> [12]http://wiki.csswg.org/planning/tokyo-workshop-2011
   KI: We can put that on the wiki, too.
   SG: Yes, I'm interested in the constraints of Japanese designers.

4. List-style-image

   <dbaron> I think there's a slight wording issue:
       [14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Feb/0674.html …
       but otherwise it seems fine
   TA: If you have an image with no ratio but a width and no height, the
       rules force the ratio to 1:1.
   <fantasai> [15]http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-224
   TA: Such an image is difficult to make, so I don't expect anything to
       break if list style images use the rules for images instead. We also
       don't have tests for it. Some browsers are quite close to my suggested
       rule. Another issue is making the wording easier. DB had some
   DB: There is something else: you leave some undefined cases, where no
       rules apply.
   TA: Ah, you're right. Will fix that. Chrome and Opera handle such
       images. Opera does it like I propose. Chrome not exactly but close.
   SG: Do you have the test case?
   TA: looking…
   TA: IE9 does what the spec says now. So I'm asking IE to change.
   SG: So apparently the spec can be implemented.
   TA: Yes, but it is inconsistent with images in other places.
   SG: Do you know of a use case?
   TA: Such images seem weird to me.
   EE: Yes, I think we just spec'ed that for completeness.
   SG: Are there any testcases for this now?
   TA: Now, there aren't.
   SG: Do we need to add some?
   TA: We have one implementation, Opera, that does it. So we don't have
       two implementations yet.
   SG: We have one implementation for the current spec, too. Should we add
       a test case at all? Should the edit be in CSS3 instead?
   EE: CSS2 and 3 cannot contradict each other, 3 can only be more
   DB: I think we can make the change and add the tests to the pool of
       tests to add after the PR test snapshot.
   <JohnJan> * agree with DB
   BK: Do we make it undefined, or make your change?
   TA: I propose to make the actual change.
   DB: We can add tests after PR, they improve interop, but do not
       invalidate the PR.
   PL: I think we can accept the edit for the CSS 2.1 errata.
   BB: But we don't have errata, we have a WD currently.
   PL: Yes, but we will have errata later.
   EE: I don't think we should postpone the edit.
   PL: Conditionally accept?
   EE: Yes, but want to review proposed tests first.
   BB: OK with me.
   BK: OK
   SF: OK
   RESOLUTION: conditionally accept Tab's edit on list-style-image size,
       pending review of tests by Elika.

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [17]scribe.perl version 1.135
    ([18]CVS log)
    $Date: 2011/02/24 17:25:14 $


   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/2011/02/23-css-irc
   3. http://www.w3.org/2011/02/23-css-minutes.html#agenda
   4. http://www.w3.org/2011/02/23-css-minutes.html#item01
   5. http://www.w3.org/2011/02/23-css-minutes.html#item02
   6. http://www.w3.org/2011/02/23-css-minutes.html#item03
   7. http://www.w3.org/2011/02/23-css-minutes.html#item04
   8. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0074.html
   9. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Feb/0528.html
  10. http://wiki.csswg.org/planning/mountain-view-2011
  11. http://www.w3.org/Style/Group/2011/MountainView
  12. http://wiki.csswg.org/planning/tokyo-workshop-2011
  13. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2011JanMar/0193.html
  14. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Feb/0674.html
  15. http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-224
  16. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Feb/0364.html
  17. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  18. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

  Bert Bos                                ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/
  http://www.w3.org/people/bos                               W3C/ERCIM
  bert@w3.org                             2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
  +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92            06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Thursday, 24 February 2011 17:50:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:56 UTC