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

[CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2011-07-01

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 12:18:28 -0700
Message-ID: <4E0E1D84.9050404@inkedblade.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

   - Reviewed status of publication requests for Namespaces, CSS3 Images
   - Reviewed proposed CSS module template updates
   - RESOLVED: publish CSS3 Speech next week as LCWD unless fantasai's review finds problems
   - (RE)RESOLVED: Seattle dates are firm (exact location still TBD)
   - RESOLVED: Add editor's draft link to module template
   - RESOLVED: Publish CSSOM as FPWD
   - RESOLVED: and add link to editors drafts in all working drafts
   - Reviewed state of mailing list discussion over CSS3 Fonts same origin restriction

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

   Tab Atkins
   Kimberly Blessing
   Tantek Çelik (late, via IRC)
   Cathy Chan
   John Daggett
   Arron Eicholz
   Elika Etemad
   Simon Fraser
   Daniel Glazman
   Arno Gourdol
   Koji Ishii
   John Jansen
   Brad Kemper
   Peter Linss
   Edward O'Connor
   Florian Rivoal
   Alan Stearns
   Anne van Kesteren
   Daniel Weck
   Steve Zilles

   Some Zakim identified as Oliver_Goldman???

<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/06/29-css-irc
Scribe: Simon Fraser

Publications / Review requests

   plinss: ready to request PR for Namespaces. i18n removed objection
   <anne> Request for finding:

   CSS Exclusions
   vincent: not ready for publication yet. still working on use cases etc.

   CSS Speech
   (danielweck not on the call)
   <danielweck> PS: I'm on the IRC...still trying to connect on SIP

   <dbaron> Was there a resolution on publishing namespaces?
   <Ms2ger> (When namespaces goes to PR, can selectors become a REC?)
   <fantasai> http://www.w3.org/blog/CSS/2011/06/22/resolutions_167
   <glazou> Ms2ger: I hope yes

   CSS3 Images
   Tab sent a list of changes
   fantasai: section 5.1 it's unclear what changed. we have resolution to
             change the degrees issue with gradients
   fantasai: what is the current meaning of the keywords in the draft?
   bradk: it's opposite
   fantasai: should make it consistent with the previous WD and then mark
             it an issue
   TabAtkins: i will do it
   will revisit next week

CSS Module Templates

   fantasai: had some feedback from jdaggett and dbaron; have not incorporated
             feedback from dbaron yet
   <dbaron> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-module/
   <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jun/0509.html
   <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jun/0534.html
   jdaggett: the intro is separated from the body by 3 sections which contain
             info that should be in a preface
   jdaggett suggests an initial section with that stuff in, before the intro
   TabAtkins: agrees; boilerplate stuff should be collected together at
              beginning or end
   Florian: would prefer it be at the top
   * glazou agrees with Florian
   fantasai: don't want it to merge with the status section. Move Document
             Conventions section to the conformance section near the end?
   <dbaron> I wonder how much we can do and remain compliant to http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules
   jdaggett: put after TOC, before Intro
   TabAtkins: how much flexibility do we have with the Status section?
   fantasai: there is some useful stuff, but much is not useful
   glazou: we don't have total flexibility. see pubrules above
   jdaggett: confused by the formatting. issues sprinkled all over the place
   fantasai: these are things that need to be replaced. they come from the template
   <dbaron> pubrules do appear to require Abstract, then SOTD, then TOC
   jdaggett: all the issues imply that there's something wrong with the template
   glazou: jdaggett wants another way to showing this
   jdaggett: issue is not the meaning that's implied here
   * Ms2ger agrees with jdaggett
   <dbaron> I actually like the big "Issue" markers for actual issues
   smfr: this is a template after all. does it matter?
   jdaggett: there are people coming into the group who will be confused by
             all these issues
   dbaron: I think we should not worry about what the template looks like,
           only what the resulting spec looks like.
   plinss: ugly is better!
   * fantasai will have to put blink in there just because now
   Florian: put all the boilerplate that immediately follows introduction to
            immediately before introduction
   TabAtkins: put all the boilerplate related to implementors at the bottom?
   glazou: not sure we can do that?
   fantasai: we can, and have
   glazou: specs are made for implementors, not authors, so do we care?
   TabAtkins: some authors read specs.
   glazou: they can skip that section
   fantasai: we can move down; what matters is what's normative, and what's
   fantasai: values section can be tailored based on the spec
   glazou: suggest fantasai comes up with a reshaped template and we discuss

CSS3 Speech

   danielweck: would like to publish CSS3 Speech as LCWD
   danielweck: there has been discussion about epub3 media overlays, but
               believes that this does not interact with css3 speech
   smfr: what would a test suite look like?
   * glazou s/look/hear :-)
   danielweck: there's some discussion; would have to talk to implementors
               about implementation
   danielweck: LCWD does not require test suite
   TabAtkins: right; needs suite to exit CR
   danielweck: would be good to have new WD, but a LCWD would give the draft
               more presence
   glazou: and triggers comments from other WGs
   glazou: please list in email the WGs you think are interested
   glazou: fantasai you need another week?
   fantasai: i can review before Tuesday
   RESOLVED: publish CSS3 Speech next week as LCWD unless fantasai's review
             finds issues

Seattle F2F

   vincent: trying to find a room to host at Adobe, but also working with
            Microsoft to find space
   sylvaing: assuming that folks will prefer Seattle
   glazou: before going on, but do we still keep this July F2F?
   jdaggett: we have a lot of work and having a F2F makes sense
   glazou: is that opinion shared?
   [general yes]
   glazou: are the dates firm?
   [general yes]
   RESOLVED: Seattle dates are firm

   glazou: sylvaing, when can you post an update on the final location
   sylvaing: end of next week, pref. earlier?
   sylvaing: hotels might book up because its a busy weekend
   johnjan: hotel on the wiki is close to Adobe for sure
   <dbaron> wiki url?
   vincent: Marriott Courtyard is listed or the SVG meeting
   <anne> it's not listed on http://wiki.csswg.org/planning ?
   <vhardy> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/F2F/Seattle_2011
   anne: when can we have an agenda?
   glazou: we would like to talk with anne about the CSS OM
   <dbaron> And the dates are June 24-26, correct?
   <Ms2ger> July?
   <dbaron> And the dates are July 24-26, correct?
   <Florianr> July 24-26, yes.


   anne: CSS OM hasn't changed for a while (been on vacation)
   Aug 2010: implementors would experiment to see if the proposed values
             API makes sense
   anne: hasn't had any feedback from implementors
   anne: need more discussion for caret position(?)
   anne: dbaron raised issue with media query listeners and when listeners
         are called
   anne: TabAtkins suggested new APIs for location of elements on screen,
         border boxes, margin boxes, including transforms
   anne: unclear if need more than getBoundingClient rect etc.
   glazou: i sent mail "CSS OM list of issues" in May
   anne: these are new feature requests; I haven't looked into them in detail
   glazou: what's the immediate future for the document?
   anne: need feedback from implementors before things can proceed
   glazou: would a first public WD give it more visibility
   anne: yes
   glazou: is there immediate work to make it ready for first public WD?
   anne: no, but would like link to current editors draft
   smfr: shouldn't we just publish WD more frequently
   fantasai: we should publish new WD when there are significant changes
+tantek via IRC
   glazou: the W3C needs to produce stable documents
   jdaggett: the font spec does this. doesn't seem like an issue
   anne: why would you review the WD when the ED has lots of fixes
   glazou: in CSS 2.1 we've backed out changes, to it can happen that the
           ED is wrong
   glazou: WD needs to be stable
   glazou: :)
   <tantek> IETF drafts have expiration dates, what's the historical reason
            why WDs don't have expiration dates?
   <tantek> or rather, could we, as one WG, put expiration dates in our WDs?
   glazou: should we link to the editors draft here?
   fantasai: we should have this in the template and do this for all WDs
   <tantek> fantasai - agreed
   <tantek> all WDs should link to their EDs
   <Ms2ger> Absolutely
   * tantek is on another phone call - so can only attend via IRC today
   RESOLVED: Add editor's draft link to module template
   RESOLVED: and add link to editors drafts in all working drafts

CSS Fonts etc

   jdaggett: glen adams from samsung has objected to any kind of same origin
   jdaggett: need to resolve whether the same origin restriction is removed
             from the CSS3 Fonts spec
   jdaggett: propose this as s topic for next week
   sylvaing: there is an organization that has normative dependencies on CSS3
             working drafts; it's a problem
   sylvaing: They're objecting to what they see as breaking changes
   kimberlyblessing: Comcast is also in this group. I'm trying to explain as
                     much as I can to the team how W3C works
   glazou: would help to have a liason person communicate with this group
   jdaggett: how can they refer to the CSS3 Fonts spec? It used to be 2 specs
             (fonts, and Web Fonts), and @font-face used to be in Web Fonts
   sylvaing: we have to resolve a hard dependency here, since there may be a
             breaking change here
   sylvaing will keep the WG informed

Line Grid proposal

   Florian: fantasai made alternative proposal at Kyoto F2F, but it hasn't
            been written down
   jdaggett: this is not my recollection from Japan
   Florian: we discussed why we need it, not the details of the proposal itself
   jdaggett: we talked about merging this and the Line Layout spec
   jdaggett: suggests Florian post an email describing the issue and referring
             to the minutes
   <fantasai> ACTION fantasai: post summary of proposal to www-style
   <trackbot> Created ACTION-336


   fantasai: what's the state of the charter?
   vhardy: we have to discuss the FX part
   move charter discussion to email
Received on Friday, 1 July 2011 19:18:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:47 UTC