- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:56:00 +0100
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Summary: Discussed -webkit- prefixing situation and how to move forward on Transforms. Considerations included: - whether to exceptionally unprefix transforms immediately or follow through with the process to CR - whether Transforms spec needed to be split into SVG/CSS or 2D/3D or some other way - whether to move to CR while deferring all issues raised by the merge - whether to publish LCWD immediately, how long of an LC period would be required, and how long it would take to finish resolving the issues No consensus positions were found, and all parties left the telecon frustrated. Time estimates for finishing work on Transforms however were agreed to be within 2-3 months if appropriately prioritized. (This of course assumes future telecons are dedicated to making progress rather than arguing process.) ====== Full minutes below ====== Present: Glenn Adams Rossen Atanassov Tab Atkins David Baron (partly via IRC) Bert Bos Tantek Çelik Elika Etemad Simon Fraser Sylvain Galineau Daniel Glazman Koji Ishii (late) Håkon Wium Lie (mostly via IRC) Chris Lilley (mostly via IRC) Peter Linss Divya Manian Edward O'Connor Anton Prowse Florian Rivoal Alan Stearns Daniel Weck (mostly via IRC) + several people who did not identify themselves >:| <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/02/15-css-irc Scribe: TabAtkins Note: Several people were having trouble dialing in, including Håkon Lie, Chris Lilley, Peter Linss, Daniel Weck, and David Baron Administrative -------------- glazou: Any extra items for today? Florian: Not sure howcome is here today; if not, shouldn't talk about GCPM glazou: I noted that fantasai posted clarifications about the selectors4 requests. glazou: Let's move to the first item on our agenda today. glazou: It's about -webkit- prefix. -webkit- Prefix Problem ----------------------- glazou: I had a lot of chats between the first day and yesterday. glazou: That ended with the proposal I made to Brendan. glazou: A compromise about what we could do in this WG. glazou: Brendan Eich. glazou: This was discussed between Brendan and Jeff Jaffe on Monday. glazou: I don't know the details, but apparently the compromise goes in the right direction. glazou: So we need to discuss and find a plan here. glazou: If it's so urgent that the three browser vendors raised in Monday, we need to move forward quickly. <smfr> linky please <florianr> http://www.w3.org/mid/4F391911.307@disruptive-innovations.com <tantek> to be clear - I was at that meeting with Jeff Jaffe and Brendan on Monday glazou: That's not a decision, it's a proposal to discuss. glazou: It merely seemed reasonable at the time I wrote it. glazou: I'd like to discuss this, and if you have counterproposals, discuss those. sylvaing: What's the connection between this and what Brendan and Jeff discussed? glazou: No idea. tantek: I was at the meeting. We discussed Daniel's proposal. tantek: I don't think anything new came out of that; it was just Jeff gaining a broader understanding. tantek: The key point is the one I made in email - we don't have a specific list yet, and I don't think anyone has yet. florianr: I don't think anyone has a final list, but we should be able to give a top-5 list or something. tantek: I can put it in a more coarse-grained fashion. We're still analyzing our data, and we don't have specific properties to propose yet. tantek: It would be very helpful for us and the group if certain specs were made to advance more quickly. tantek: Because the syntax is stable. florianr: I have a question about your studies. florianr: It seems that with even a little bit of study, it seems easy to come up with a simple list of stuff applicable everywhere. florianr: So what info are you looking for? ... tantek: We also find that when -webkit-border-radius is used, there's also the other prefixes or unprefixed. tantek: So the result is, how much difference would it make to implement -webkit-border-radius? tantek: if the answer is "not that much difference", it's not worth doing. tantek: So it's the question of what it's used with. tantek: If we can avoid supporting -webkit-, great. tantek: When we do find a property that seems to be -webkit- prefixed only, the question is: tantek: Is it affecting the user, and how much? tantek: And that's a hard question to answer without manually looking at the site. tantek: If you can't tell the difference, what's the point of implementing it? tantek: So we're trying to be conservative here. tantek: The coarse data alone, though, provides us enough clues to recommend to the WG which specs to advance faster. florianr: I've done some studies here. I don't think there as details as yours, but I've looked for whether -webkit- is used with or without something else that opera supports. glazou: Can you share this data? florianr: I've sent it to the private list. <florianr> http://www.w3.org/mid/op.v9n5gsan4p7avi@localhost.localdomain glazou: Are you making a big difference between border-radius, which is specified and implemented everywhere, and between properties that are more experimental, have little or no spec, and not implemented anywhere else. glazou: For the former, the decision to implement -webkit- is only in your hands. There's nothing we can do on the standards side. glazou: For the latter, we need more specs, we need faster movement. florianr: There's a third case, which is important - things that are on progress, but not unprefixed yet. glazou: For the second case, I think we have a problem. Most of them come from Apple. glazou: The current specs available online are really light, to say the least. florianr: Like text-size-adjust? glazou: Not only that, but yes. glazou: I think the definition is underspecified, to say the least. florianr: From my data, text-size-adjust comes first among things without a spec, -webkit-appearance is next. sylvaing: When you crawl, what UA string are you using? florianr: wget's UA string. sylvaing: On the mobile web, you get very different content based on the UA string. sylvaing: If you pretend to be webkit, the results are completely different. sylvaing: So we're trying to figure out which method to use to report the numbers. <smfr> [time check: 2 mins left on this issue; what are we trying to achieve?] florianr: I've seen people doing more sophisticated analysis, and the numbers were higher if they spoofed as webkit, but the ordering was pretty similar to my method. glazou: So, what are we going to do *now*? glazou: We need specs for the underspecified properties, and we need analysis for the ones that need to go faster. tantek: I think there are 3 specs that the WG needs to publish as LC asap. tantek: And consider dropping prefixes early since the syntax is stable. tantek: Transforms, Transitions, and Animations. glazou: 2d or 3d? tantek: I think 2d. tantek: Based on the wG discussion to split 2d and 3d. sylvaing: I think we agreed to try and advance them together, because it would be more work to pull them apart. florianr: going back to the things without a spec, I think we're counting on webkit people to submit a spec for -webkit-text-size-adjust. florianr: And appearance was dropped from CSS3 UI with the intent to be in CSS4 UI. florianr: Analysis suggests it's being used. <dbaron> I don't think appearance was dropped with intent to be in css4-ui. tantek: I agree that it would be good to see proposals from Webkit about text-size-adjust, at least a simple draft. <dbaron> I think it was dropped because some people objected to the principle. tantek: On appearance, based on my prop there's very little interop. Most seem to be using it for appearance:none. But I don't think there was much actual impact of using it. tantek: So I think the highest impact is text-size-adjust and the three specs I mentioned. glazou: So let's focus on those three specs and text-size-adjust. glazou: It seems that the syntax is not going to change. glazou: So can we unprefix and move them forward fast? smfr: At the f2f we decided *not* to split the transforms specs. <dbaron> I think we should just try to move all of transforms forward quickly. smfr: And we have some demands for Transforms syntax changes. Tab: Let's move transforms forward. We can adjust syntax later. <dbaron> We should reject the demands for syntax changes glazou: So do we agree to move the Transforms spec without the syntax change? smfr: Are you talking about combined 2d/3d/svg transforms spec? glazou: Yes. smfr: Are we going to wait for feedback from SVG, or define some conformance classes? tantek: Has anyone shipped support for the new features? smfr: No. Dirk: The only difference is the three argument rotate(), so I don't think it makes sense to split from SVG right now. <glenn> presumably transforms will go to LCWD before CR, yes? <fantasai> glenn, yes, that's required <dbaron> I think the three argument rotate() should be reverted. <ChrisL> In the context of a spec jointly edited by SVG and CSS folks, how are you "waiting for feedback" from SVG tantek: I'm not opposed to new things in the future, but I think it should be at minimum split into a separate WD and published later. tantek: Or marked it as at-risk and keep moving, knowing it might not exit CR. * fantasai prefers the at-risk option smfr: The other issue is that we can't drop prefixes on 2d unless we start prefixing the 3d functions. smfr: Which will be confusing for authors. tantek: Why is it difficult if we have interop on 2d? <ChrisL> all the options are confusing to authors in some way <ChrisL> prefixing 3d seems the least confusing option florianr: The prefixes are on the property, not the value. florianr: so to unprefix 2d only, you'd have to prefix the 3d functions glazou: I think the 3d functions are already too spread on the web to worry about it. sylvaing: I would like a testsuite before we claim interop. TabAtkins: Do you expect any lack of interop to affect the syntax? [unminuted talking over each other] <ChrisL> +1 to tantek's proposal <ChrisL> tantek proposes moving to lcwd asap and dropping prefixes at lcwd for this spec sylvaing: It's just about splitting 2d/3d. <smfr> is there anything new here that we didn't discuss at the F2F? tantek: I'm not talking about exiting CR right now, just unprefixing. sylvaing: Are we making an exception to the unprefixing rule? tantek: Yes. glazou: Last week we discussed de facto vs de jure standards. These are de facto standards already. [minuter declares bankruptcy] sylvain: We have rules for dropping prefixes and I'm asking why we're making an exception? TabAtkins: Back to the discussion. Transform, Transitions, Animations. Drop prefixes? TabAtkins: Can we poll on this? Discussion seems to be going nowhere. Poll options: 1) Move Transforms/Transitions/Animations to LC and allow unprefixing. 2) No exception, just try to move the specs fast. <fantasai> If we're making an exception to the process, we should document that in the Snapshot *as an exception* glazou: 1 chris: option 1 glenn: 2 astearns: 1 bert: 2 florianr: 1 dirk: Does option 1 mean no more syntax changes? TabAtkins: Yes. smfr: 2 sylvaing: 2 nimbu: 1 plinss: Torn, but 2. antonp: 2 tantek: 1 Rossen: 2 TabAtkins: 1 howcome: 1 dbaron: 1 hober: 2 arronei: 2 krit: 2 davidStorey: 1 * fantasai votes for 3 fantasai: I don't agree with ignoring the issues and just pushing to CR, as some people seem to be advocating here. I also don't think any syntax change should be pushed to L4, because as sylvain says they need to be fixed now if at all. fantasai: My preference would be to list the transforms functions we're trying to unprefix in the Exceptions clause, and work on the spec knowing that we are syntax-constrained. I would like to see all the issues addressed prior to CR. fantasai: If people want to cycle through mutliple LCs because they feel that somehow makes it better, fine. <ChrisL> fantasai is voting for a modified 1 which may allow syntax changes if there are issues to avoid multiple last calls <ChrisL> I agree with fantasai <dbaron> Yes, I'm happier with fantasai's modified (1) than with the original (1). <Bert> (I think 3 is like 1, except that we explicitly reserve (and warn!) the right to change the syntax again.) * hober thought 3 sounded a lot like 2 <ChrisL> 3) move to LCWD, try to freeze syntax, unprefix, but still correct issues if they arise in LCWD * Bert stays with option 2 * dbaron but fantasai's proposal and (1) have in common that we're making an exception regarding the unprefixing rule sylvaing: I don't think the process is blocking us here. tantek: In practice it is rarely a few weeks from first LC to CR. ChrisL: Often it takes way longer to process results. tantek: How long a LC do you want, Sylvain? tantek: So we have a proposal for, what, 8 weeks LC? <glenn> does that include time for processing? 8wks seems long for comment period ChrisL: Seems like 8 weeks for dealing with issues, not actually the comment/review period. <glenn> 3-4 weeks should be enough for comments... * hober notes that we're still on the first agenda item sylvaing: I think 3 for review, 8 for dealing seems fine. sylvaing: I think we can realistically take this to CR in 2-3 months. If we don't think it's doable, what are we doing dropping prefixes? dbaron: I think that in some cases, the specs are in bad shape where impls interop. dbaron: Not saying everything, but several cases where we have interop but the spec doesn't describe it properly. smfr: Can you give an example. dbaron: Not off my head. tantek: When that happened in css2.1, we just changed the spec. dbaron: I'm not even saying the spec is different, but rather that it's unclear. <dbaron> (Though I'm thinking of some aspects of the model for animations.) <Rossen> text-size-adjust is a good example of what dbaron just said glazou: And that should be fast. tantek: So, Sylvain, you want to drop prefixes in 11 weeks, not tomorrow, is that right? sylvaing: I think so, yeah. sylvaing: I don't want to make precedents for anything. tantek: No precedent, this is an exception. <glenn> where is "unprefixing rule" documented? <fantasai> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS/ <smfr> glenn: the green text:http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS/#experimental <glenn> tnx sylvaing: We have a spec with four impls, but there hasn't been an urgency. [unminuted discussion consisted of Sylvain arguing for just going through with the process rather than making an exception, and others arguing for making the exception] [other unminuted discussion about daniel ruling that there is no consensus, and we should therefore dedicate our time to solving the issues and moving the spec forward] glazou: I suggest the 3 browser vendors that want to unprefix discuss amongst themselves. glazou: No consensus is emerging, despite all the discussion that has already happened. glazou: We are *moving on*. ChrisL: Since we don't have consensus on dropping prefixes, I think the chair should discuss moving LC forward. glazou: Agreed. glazou: So what are we going to do to address the issue asap. smfr: It seems we need to split into 3 and 4, where the new SVG stuff goes into level 4. smfr: With the remaining issue being 3d transforms. tantek: I agree with smfr. I think that the problem here is not being properly understood. We'd like to implement unprefixed at the same time. tantek: Let me make it clear. If the WG cannot unprefix quickly, we (firefox) will implement -webkit- prefixes. Dirk: Because of level 3/4 splitting, I don't think it makes sense to do the SVG stuff in two levels. Dirk: I don't think SVG is blocking 2d transforms, maybe 3d transforms. <sylvaing> I understand webkit-only properties being an issue for mobile; transforms is not in that category for us TabAtkins: sylvain, that's different from what you said at the f2f sylvain: No, it's consistent. <fantasai> Sylvain said that -webkit-was a problem. He did not say that transforms was a problem. <glenn> wouldn't it be better to go to a common prefix rather than reimplementing vendor specific prefixes? e.g., instead of simply dropping rule, encourage all vendors to support -w3-wd-... or some such? <TabAtkins> glenn, no, that doesn't solve the problem, and introduces new and exciting ones. <glenn> would prefer a common w3c sanctioned prefix over no prefix <tantek> I want to hear from everyone who voted (2), what issues do you see as blocking LC for those 3 specs? ChrisL: We know what the differences are between SVG and CSS transforms. tantek: For transitions and animations, you do? sylvaing: No, I don't think any of those are killer. sylvaing: I don't think 3 months will make a difference. I want to prioritize and move on. tantek: If the option is between -webkit- and unprefixed, or -webkit- and nothing else, I prefer the first option. But delaying unprefixed will not delay the decision we're making. florianr: This seems USELESS to continue discussing, since this is not working here. glazou: Moz, MS, Opera, discuss together next week and bring a COMMON position to the WG. glazou: If we end up with multiple positions in our call next week, this is a *waste of our time*. glazou: So start that immediately in the mailing list. glazou: tantek, can we try that? glazou: Today we came for discussion, and I thought the 3 browser vendors had a common position. Apparently that's not the case. glazou: So please get your positions together and bring it to the group, so we don't waste our time again. tantek: I've put our position on the table. tantek: I think the burden is on the objectors. tantek: Anyone who objects, please bring reasons for why they're opposing unprefixing, or why they're opposing LC. glazou: I suggest we adjourn on this failure status, and we work on the issues RIGHT NOW in the mailing list. glazou: I can't declare any consensus with a 9-8 vote. Meeting closed. Post-meeting IRC logs: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/css/20120215#l-508
Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:56:32 UTC