- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:27:14 -0700
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Summary:
- Discussed location of F2F. Most people seem to be OK with Kyoto/Osaka,
but we need a meeting room June 2-4.
- RESOLVED: Updated proposal accepted for CSS2.1 Issue 203.
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-203
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0567.html
- CSS2.1 Issue 179 is closed with Bert's latest edits and Anton's approval.
- RESOLVED: For CSS2.1 Issue 192 replace first problematic sentence with
"If a shortened line box is too small to contain any content,
then the line box is shifted downward (and its width recomputed)
until either some content fits or there are no more floats present."
and change "first available line" to "same line" in second sentence.
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-192
- RESOLVED: Not dropping :first-line :first-letter from CSS2.1.
It may be underdefined, but it's in CSS1 and CSS3 and we have a usable
level of interop demonstrated in the test suite, so dropping it here
doesn't gain us anything.
- RESOLVED: Advance CSS2.1 to PR.
- Plan for errata is to maintain errata list after REC and occasionally publish
updated RECs via PER phase.
====== Full minutes below ======
Present:
David Baron
Bert Bos
Cathy Chan
John Daggett
Brady Duga
Arron Eicholz
Elika Etemad
Simon Fraser
Sylvain Galineau
Daniel Glazman
Arno Gourdol
Koji Ishii
John Jansen
Peter Linss
Alex Mogilevsky
Anton Prowse
Edward O'Connor
Alan Stearns
Steve Zilles
<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/03/30-css-irc
ScribeNick: fantasai
Administrative
--------------
plinss: Anything to add to agenda?
glazou: We need to collect testimonials for CSS2.1
glazou: Each member should ping their AC rep about that
smfr: What's a testimonial?
glazou: It's just one paragraph about how Apple is happy about the release
of CSS2.1 and it's going to change the world and their strategy, etc.
F2F meeting
-----------
plinss: got an email from Koji this morning
koji: That's all the info I have.
koji: If there are many concerns, we can look for locations in Osaka area
which is safer
plinss: Everyone read the email?
glazou: Personally I prefer avoiding Japan at this time.
jdaggett: Could you explain?
glazou: First I have a veto from my family.
glazou: Second, flights are chaotic at this time. E.g. Air France is
diverting flights to Tokyo
jdaggett: they're diverted to Osaka, though
glazou: Lastly, we need to decide asap, otherwise my flight will be
too expensive
jdaggett: I have a feeling prices won't be going up
glazou: I checked prices recently, and they're more expensive than they
used to be
glazou: at least from France
sylvaing: There are a lot of people attending those meetings.
sylvaing: I don't think it's fair to change the meeting because it will
be more expensive for one person.
sylvaing: We cannot predict airline prices, especially for Japan at this
time.
sylvaing: I don't understand why we need to make this decision today.
jdaggett: I don't understand urgency. Sure better to decide quickly as
possible, but not convinced it needs to be today.
glazou: Because we're almost 60 days before the trip
sylvaing: I always book my trips 30 days before
glazou: You have a rich company behind you
dbaron: Flight prices often go /down/ between 8wks and 4 wks. (Not always.)
<Bert> (I'd be OK with Osaka or Kyoto. Offer of hosting at W3C/ERCIM in
France also still stands. But please decide soon.)
jdaggett: I would be interested in hearing from people who were originally
coming to Japan and are now concerned.
glazou: I am
Bert: Me too. I'm concerned about Tokyo. Could go to Osaka or Kyoto.
Steve: I'm concerned because I expected things to get better over this
last week, and in fact they've gotten worse.
Steve: So I haven't seen things getting better.
sylvaing: Have you heard from the news, or from people actually there?
sylvaing: I hear one thing from the news, but another from the people I
know there.
jdaggett: The actual radiation numbers are going down around the plant.
jdaggett: No predictor of what could happen tomorrow, but there isn't
actually a lot of stuff that's going right now that is an
immediate concern for people living in Tokyo.
jdaggett: I'd be concerned if I was living near the plant.
jdaggett: But Tokyo is far enough away
kojiishi: Not sure appropriate comparison, but Chernobyl escape zone was
100km, and Tokyo is more than 250km
kojiishi: If you take Osaka, you have 500km more distance
sylvaing: I'm fine with Tokyo, I'm fine with Osaka, I'm fine with Japan
sylvaing: I would like it if we could find a way to keep that workshop
going for our Japanese friends to attend
sylvaing: So if not in Japan, then somewhere nearby
sylvaing: But I'm fine with Japan.
<alexmog> vladivostok?
<bradk> http://news.discovery.com/earth/japan-nuclear-reactors-worst-case-110329.html
sylvaing: Wrt prices, I think the airfare might go up, but we're staying
for awhile and hotel prices are likely to be very low.
sylvaing cites case of his last trip
jdaggett: But we need to outline a path to making a decision.
jdaggett: i"m not comfortable with the idea of just deciding today
jdaggett: But I think we need to set a scope for when the venue is defined
jdaggett: Unfortunately Tab is not on call today
jdaggett: And he was sponsor of venue
jdaggett: Not sure from Koji's message that we have a solid meeting place
there
jdaggett: Google just has a small sales office in Osaka
SteveZ: My concern is whether we have a sponsor if we have to rent.
jdaggett: Kyoto would be a better place, there's much better accommodation
etc.
<kojiishi> http://www.consortium.or.jp/contents_detail.php?frmId=1608
kojiishi: Current candidate is in Kyoto
kojiishi: This is a candidate for the forum. Unfortunately the room is not
available for June 4th, so we're looking for other places for
the F2F
kojiishi: Kyoto and Osaka are very close. Possible to have workshop in
one place and meeting in the other without changing hotels.
jdaggett: Japan has two electrical grids, and Osaka is in a different one
from Tokyo
jdaggett: The blackouts don't apply to Osaka
sylvaing: We should check with Tab about hosting situation
fantasai: We could decide on Japan, and then figure out the venue later.
Then people can book their flights now, and find their hotels later
Steve: As long as someone is dedicated to sponsoring the venue, in case it
costs something, then we're ok
kojiishi: Wrt rental offices, ICT group in Japan is willing to pay for that.
Steve: Think we should spend 2 weeks to settle on the venue
plinss: So, sounds like most people are ok with Osaka/Kyoto aside from glazou
plinss: I think 2 weeks is reasonable
plinss: Meanwhile try to nail down a venue
plinss: make a final call then
-jdaggett
CSS2.1
------
plinss: Let's try to get this nailed down today.
<plinss> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2011Mar/att-0238/last-call.htm
<plinss> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-203
Bert: I agree with the proposal
<plinss> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0567.html
Arron: fantasai and I spent a lot of time looking over with one of our
developers here, and we all agree it's a viable solution here
Arron: Text that was there previously seemed to be there for consistency
with 8.3.1, and it just causes confusion in this section because
it doesn't match exactly.
Arron: So removing that line about bottom border doesn't create a problem,
and makes spec more consistent with implementations--and with what
we wwant in the end, really
dbaron: That was to prevent margins below the bottom of the element from
influencing the hypothetical position
fantasai: The rules in 8.3.1 introduce the bottom border in some cases,
such as the one you're concerned about. Just not in all, so
saying that here is inconsistent with 8.3.1
RESOLVED: proposal accepted
<plinss> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-179
johnjan: We were confused and just wanted to make sure it was in fact closed
plinss: We have an objection here
<dbaron> the second objection URL there belongs on issue 192
?: Bert responded after that message with further edits
+Anton Prowse
Anton: What came up on IRC, the first URL on objection is the latest that
was on the mailing list about this
Anton summarizes issue.
fantasai: I think Bert just edited that.
<dbaron> we're looking at http://www.w3.org/Style/css2-updates/css2/visuren.html#anonymous-block-level ?
Anton: In the copy I'm looking at it still says the same thing.
Bert: I don't think you can see the actual editor's draft.
"The P element contains a chunk (C1) of anonymous text followed by a
block-level element followed by another chunk (C2) of anonymous text.
The resulting boxes would be a block box representing the BODY,
containing an anonymous block box around C1, the SPAN block box, and
another anonymous block box around C2."
Anton: That looks right ot me
<glazou> YAY :-)
<glazou> GREEN
<plinss> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-192
<plinss> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0402.html
dbaron: I sent a response email based on the WG discussion there, and no
longer even agreed with that discussion while I was writing things
up. And now I've forgotten it all anyway.
fantasai: Didn't Bert have some proposed changes for this?
Bert's message:
Anton's suggestions in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0402.html
are relative to text that already changed a bit. Relative to the current
text, I think he means the following two changes in 9.5 (Floats). Replace
> If a shortened line box is too small to contain any content
> after the float, then that content is shifted downward until
> either it fits or there are no more floats present. Any
> content in the current line before a floated box is reflowed
> in the first available line on the other side of the float.
by:
| If a shortened line box is too small to contain any content
| after the float without overflowing its containing block,
| then that content is shifted downward until
| either it fits or there are no more floats present. Any
| content in the current line before a floated box is reflowed
| in the same line on the other side of the float.
i.e., add "without overflowing its containing block" and replace
"first available" by "same."
He further noticed a browser bug that could have been avoided by a
better description (viz., that several browsers forget to ignore
the last space before a float, and thus conclude that a float doesn't
fit, although it actually does). But he is not asking for a rewrite
of level 2, just that we do better in level 3.
I'm OK with those changes. They may of may not make things easier to
understand, but as far as I can see they don't change what the spec
is trying to say.
dbaron: Doesn't this introduce an inconsistency between start and end floats
fantasai: So we should say "line box" instead of "containing block"
Anton describes an RTL case
Anton: You can't have inline content overflowing the line box, it gets bigger
dbaron: No, the line box edges are determined by the containing block /
float intrusions.
Anton: Ok, if that's true, then for sure we should talk about overflowing
the line box htere.
dbaron: I want to find the context here. All three times we've discussed
this I've missed the context
dbaron: What section is this in?
Anton: We want "if the content fits", not "it fits"...
Anton: As far as I understand is, you have your stack of line boxes, you
might have floats present.
Anton: You're trying to flow the inline boxes into the line box
Anton: You only shift things if you can't fit any piece of that content
next to the float
Anton: The one characteristic that's different btw normal line box and
the shortened line box is that content can't overflow it
Anton: If it would, it moves downward
dbaron: I think your original proposal to delete "further" is correct --
it's about whether *any* content fits in the shortened line box.
dbaron: If content before the float doesn't fit, then the float positioning
rules kick in to move the float.
<dbaron> If a shortened line box is too small to contain any content,
then the line box is shifted downward until either some content
fits or there are no more floats present.
Anton: You used rules 6-8 to explain this, [...]
Anton: You can never have a previous box that is below the top of the float
Anton: Previous content absolutely has to stay in the same line box. It
might get shifted to the other side of the float, but never moves
down.
dbaron points to his proposal in IRC
Anton: That looks perfect.
Bert: I don't see any difference between any of these variants
dbaron: Difference with what I typed is it has fewere occurances of "it",
some of those "it"s were unclear. So I expanded all of them.
Anton: Other difference is the original text says "first available box"
Anton: My impression was that Bert's original concept of line boxes was
you had a line box grid, a stack of perfectly stacked line boxes
inside the containing block.
Anton: While that's a nice concept, it's not consistent with the rest of
the spec, and certainly not with implementations
Anton: It's not filling content into a lined notepad
Anton: The line boxes can be shifted themselves
Anton: leaving a gap
Anton: So rather than a stack of empty line boxes, you have a gap
Anton: "first available" made sense in the original vision, but not anymore.
Anton: (Wasn't even correct in original case, because content before the
float wouldn't get flowed into multiple line boxes anyway.)
Bert: Sounds right. But we still have to decide which version of the text
to adopt
Anton: What dbaron proposed on IRC looks correct.
Steve: That implies the shortned lined box is moved down, but when it moves
down it's no longer shortened necessarily
<Bert> (The line box not just moves down, it also gets wider...)
<dbaron> If a shortened line box is too small to contain any content,
then the line box is shifted downward (and its width recomputed)
until either some content fits or there are no more floats present.
dbaron: I added another proposal in IRC.
Anton: works for me. felt it was implicit, but equally correct what dbaron
wrote there
plinss: Any objections?
RESOLVED: dbaron's latest proposal accepted
dbaron: Did we resolve all the bits of the issue email?
Anton: We've solved both parts in one sentence.
dbaron and Anton discuss "first available"
Bert: "first available" is in the next sentence
dbaron: So we've agreed to replace 2 sentences with 1?
Anton double-checks
Anton: I think dbaron's proposal combines those two sentences.
Anton: What it misses is the part about content before the float moving to
the other side of the float
dbaron: well, i was only trying to replace the first, hadn't gotten to the
second
Anton: If we were going to replace the second sentence...
<dbaron> Issue 2 is the first sentence and Issue 3 is the second sentence
dbaron: do you want to replace 'first available line' to 'same line'?
Anton: Yes, that makes sense there.
plinss: Other thoughts on that change?
Bert: Fine with that too
RESOLVED: Second proposal also accepted
<oyvind> ("the other side" in the float issue still doesn't make sense...)
<antonp> @oyvind: i agree for rtl, but that was rejected by the WG
<antonp> sorry, i mean for right floats in ltr
<dbaron> oyvind, It really only makes sense for floats on the start-side, I think.
<oyvind> right
plinss: A couple more items left. If people can stay, would be nice to get
publication out today
sylvaing: I can stay. When do you need testimonials?
Bert: If we are lucky, then first available date we can issue them is May
31st
Bert: So before May 31st
Bert: a few days before that
<Bert> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0637.html
Bert: I propose we don't change anything now.
Bert summarizes the email
dbaron and Bert discuss something that they thought was defined but
apparently isn't
dbaron: ok, let's just leave it
Bert: Description of line-height property ...
dbaron: Used doesn't mean it changes the answer :-)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0623.html
fantasai: Those edits seem correct to me
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0277.html
fantasai: Issue about why aren't we dropping :first-line and :first-letter
fantasai: I think our answer is that it's in CSS1 and CSS3, so leaving it
out of CSS2.1 doesn't make sense.
dbaron: Although I wish we used text from an earlier draft of Selectors
Arron: We have a good enough area of interop here, based on testcases.
RESOLVED: Not dropping :first-line :first-letter from CSS2.1.
dbaron would like to drop it, but not going there right now.
Bert: we need an updated disposition of comments
Arron: Already have it ready
Bert: Implementation reports
plinss: Have it, just need to write it up formally.
Bert: Ok, then I have to update draft with what we decided today.
plinss: I propose advancing 2.1 to PR
plinss: Any objections?
RESOLVED: Advance CSS2.1 to PR.
Anton: What's the plan for errata?
Anton: Lots of issues that need errata'ing
Anton: including contradictions in margin collapsing etc.
plinss: Don't have a formal timeline yet
plinss: There will always be issues, since it's such a long spec
dbaron: Once we're at REC, it's easier to get to REC again. PER combines
LC and PR
dbaron: and then we can publish an updated REC
Bert: Errata can be published any time. We can update the errata list easily.
Meeting closed.
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2011 19:27:54 UTC