- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:30:44 -0800
- To: www-style@w3.org
Summary:
- RESOLVED: Publish Flexbox as WD.
- RESOLVED: Postpone the items listed as postpone in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Feb/1083.html
- RESOLVED: transition-* lists are aligned just like background-*,
using transition-property as the master
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14604
- RESOLVED: reverse animations deferred from Transitions L1;
but add example of how effect can be achieved now
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14611
- RESOLVED: Remove mention of 'grid' and 'zoom' properties from
Transitions spec
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14618
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14626
- RESOLVED: vertical-align keywords are not animatable
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14988
- RESOLVED: No transition (no transition events fire) when
transition-delay and transition-duration are zero
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15838
- RESOLVED: transform spec should make intersection behavior a MUST
- Discussed some concerns with migration to Mercurial for specs
- CSS3 Images Disposition of Comments has been drafted, please review
changes and proposed resolutions:
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/issues-lc-2012
- RESOLVED: Add after "Relative units in media queries are based on the
initial value" a clarification that units are never based
on the results of declarations, instead of adding 'rem'
example.
- RESOLVED: move editors of MQ who are no longer active to "Former editor"
- Will shift Media Queries to PR next week, once implementation
reports / testsuite are ready.
- RESOLVED: drop comma between attribute name and type in attr()
- RESOLVED: publish last call of css3-values
====== Full minutes below ======
Present:
Glenn Adams
Rossen Atanassov
Tab Atkins
David Baron
Kimberly Blessing
Bert Bos
Tantek Çelik (via IRC)
John Daggett
Arron Eicholz
Elika Etemad
Simon Fraser
Sylvain Galineau
Daniel Glazman
Vincent Hardy
Koji Ishii
Brad Kemper
Håkon Wium Lie
Chris Lilley
Peter Linss
Divya Manian
Alex Mogilevsky
Edward O'Connor
Anton Prowse
Florian Rivoal
Dirk Shulze
Alan Stearns
David Storey
Daniel Weck
Steve Zilles
<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/02/29-css-irc
Scribe: glenn
Chair: glazou
Administrative
--------------
Florian: like to talk about MQ
<Zakim> + +8521616aabb
alex: can we publish WD of Flexbox?
<Zakim> + +47.23.69.aaee
<Zakim> +??P78
Sylvain: gradients on agenda?
glazou: only normative reference on agenda ... yes if possible
alex: discussed LC on flexbox
Florian: would like a WD
alex: will publish by tuesday
chrisl: WD or what?
RESOLVED: Publish Flexbox as WD.
ACTION: ChrisL to publish flexbox wd
<trackbot> Created ACTION-453
<tantek> TabAtkins, do you have a URL/webpage example of t he new
flexbox syntax/functionality/algorithm that shows it
"working" (even prefixed) in 2+ implementations? (just
curious what state of spec vs implementation is.
Transitions
-----------
<smfr> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Feb/1083.html
glazou: post msg from david with list of issues
dbaron: [summarizes items listed to defer]
<ChrisL> I agree with all the ones in the postpone category, having read
through them
<sylvaing> ChrisL, +1
<tantek> dbaron's clustering of issues postpone/easy/medium/hard is a
good approach for helping advance these specs quickly.
Florian: what is meant by defer?
florian: impls free to do what they want?
Tab: people will depend on whatever the implementations do, no matter what
the spec says
smfr: webkit has cross fade
smfr: will do transitions using cross fade, agrees should be undefined
how accomplished
* fantasai agrees with florian
dbaron: I think WebKit is implementing the newer spec
Florian: should not have normative statement if will soon override
ChrisL: what is wrong with saying undefined?
ChrisL: worried if you say can't animate, or if you say can animate
but not what happens
fantasai: should specify that whether and how it's animated is undefined
fantasai: then mention that it will be defined in future spec
chrisl: if spec says you should not animate this, will have tests asserting
that it doesn't animate, which will fail in implementations of the
newer spec. If you leave it undefined, there will be no tests.
dbaron: css1/2 have said ignore props not defined in spec, yet css3 is
defining new props
dbaron: I think that's fine
* sylvaing thinks we're spending a lot of time figuring out what not to do
<stearns> we know what not do to, we're figuring out how not to do it
<florianr> This level of css does not expect XXX to animate. Different
modules or later levels may define how to animate them.
<smfr> I'm fine with florianr's wording
???: such and such is not expected to animate, but different ? will
defines how this works
dbaron: are we talking just about images/gradients or everything not
animatable?
dbaron: think we're talking about everything, concerned about putting
in a big loop hole by making it undefined
chrisl: There are three categories of things
chrisl: (1) not animatable
(2) animatable, but don't know how to animate,
(3) not sure
???: is it clear on (2) vs (3)? Rather be specific when possible.
dbaron: ok if we have statement about limited set of props
dbaron: should i take an action to write that statement?
dbaron: most of the rest aren't properties
glazou: would like a decision
<smfr> i agree
chrisl: agrees with entire list of things to postpone
... to which sylviang agreed
<smfr> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14609
dbaron: issue on transitioning value types you can't interpolate
dbaorn: things would animate that people aren't expecting to animate
Tab: can define special timing model for discrete things, and only
include those properties if the animate
chrisl: in SVG discrete changes interpolate
dbaron: are people not worried about this?
dbaron: will put constraints on what we can do
tab: if transitions immediately after non-zero, then should work
<smfr> transition: all 2s 2s;
tab: find with leaving or fixing, simple to fix
smfr: thinks not simple to fix
tab: shouldn't have transition all
Florian: suggests postponing
dbaron: Given the common use of transitions already, we probably
should work within constraints anyway. Ok with postponing
<smfr> i'm ok with postponing
RESOLVED: Postpone the items listed as postpone in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Feb/1083.html
<smfr> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15844
tab: can't having impls doing different things...
dbaron: don't want webkit behavior
smfr: WebKit treats 'auto' as '0'
dbaron: That's a bug and should be fixed.
<Bert> (Animating from 'top' to 'bottom' makes sense, but doesn't
seem needed.)
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14604
dbaron: how to match lists of different lengths
dbaron: in transition-* properties
dbaron: For backgrounds, it's the length of background-image that matters
dbaron: suggest we do the same, using transition-property
dbaron: if other properties have more values, use beginning of list
and ignore the rest
<ChrisL> agree with the truncated/repeated proposal
dbaron: Proposed to copy behavior of background properties
RESOLVED: resolve bug 14604 as proposed
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14611
dbaron: next, reverse animation using opposite timing function, people
ask for feature
dbaron: Sugest postponing such a feature, but adding an example to show
how it can be used now
dbaron: a little confusing at first, but not too hard
glazou: good compromise
RESOLVED: resolve bug 14611 as proposed
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14618
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14626
dbaron: spec mentions grid and zoom props
dbaron: grid isn't any spec, zoom is non-standard; propose removing refs
<ChrisL> agreed
tab: agree
RESOLVED: resolve bug 14618 and 14626 as proposed
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14988
dbaron: vertical align is animatable (according to spec), but what
does animating keywords mean?
<smfr> agreed
Florian: should we say "no keywords" or just enumerate the subset of
what can animate?
RESOLVED: resolve bug 14988 as proposed
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15838
dbaron: last of easy items
dbaron: no transition when both transition-delay and transition-duration
are zero seconds
<ChrisL> agree on the zero transition
dbaron: nothing says it
tab: doesn't like because it is discontinuous behavior
dbaron: the default is transition-property: all
tab: ok, need to make not a transition
florianr: does the spec say this?
smfr: implication of transition not occurring is that no events fire?
tab: oh, we default to transition-property: all; and transition-duration
/ transition-delay to zero
bert: Spec says no animation in that case
Florian: does the spec say that?
<Bert> "By default the value is ‘0s’, meaning that the transition is
immediate (i.e. there will be no animation)."
<TabAtkins> Specifically, the current "no transitions" default is
implemention with a property of "all" and a delay/duration
of "0".
tab: events are important part
fantasai: why do we have default of all/zero?
smfr: [explained the original reasoning between the current defaults
vs defaulting to a property of 'none' and some default duration:
authors could transition the properties they were changing by
making a single statement adding transition-duration]
smfr: [there are usability reasons for defaults of 'all' and '0s']
<smfr> i approve
RESOLVED: resolve bug 15838 as proposed
Z-Axis intersection for transforms
----------------------------------
glazou: moving to Z-axis intersection issue for transforms
glazou: is dirk here?
<smfr> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Feb/1202.html
Florian: opera does not have impl of 3d transforms
Florian: in favor of saying do intersection in spec
Florian: not in favor of saying should
dbaron: talked to Robert O'Callahan, and he agreed the correct behavior
(plane splitting) is obvious but we don't do it correctly now,
but we should
tab: would like to do correctly, though impl is tricky
RESOLVED: transform spec should make intersection behavior a MUST
Mercurial Migration
-------------------
jdaggett: possible problem with mirroring specs
jdaggett: there were concerns about dvcs.w3.org not being able to
use Apache configs.
jdaggett: proposal was to host specs on csswg.org, but I think that's
a bad idea
jdaggett: means ... all editor's drafts have to point to csswg.org
jdaggett: I don't see that using Apache is necessary. We can use
<meta> to do redirection.
jdaggett: Not ideal, but better than having csswg.org be a point of failure
jdaggett: Not necessary to use .htaccess facilities
<tantek> I agree, I'd rather delay the source control transition if
it means we can avoid one or more temporary places for specs.
plinss: timing to be finalized today
plinss: infrastructure already in place
plinss: we wanted better docs, but working on them today
plinss: no addl burden on editors
<tantek> I have not had time to retry the hg instructions again to
see where I get stuck next btw.
jdaggett: question using URLs to refer to csswg.org host
plinss: We could ask sysreq to set up a reverse proxy on dev.w3.org
bert: pretty sure its possible
<dbaron> (Why do a reverse proxy on a w3c server if we could just do
a checkout on a w3c server?)
<tantek> exactly, what dbaron said
plinss: this is just a stop gap, i.e., using csswg.org
jdaggett: doesn't see need for interim step
<tantek> can we delay transition and avoid stopgaps?
<tantek> what's the rush?
* smfr wonders if this is better resolved offline
<tantek> I agree with the concerns that jdaggett has raised.
plinss: if we use reverse proxy, nobody will know
... will start with proxy on dev.w3.org to csswg.org
jdaggett: doesn't like having csswg.org as a point of failure
plinss: only for a few weeks/months
jdaggett: doesn't see this step as necessary
<dbaron> If there's a chance we can make this happen in a matter of
days, I think we should try to get that to happen.
<dbaron> I think it's preferable to have the editors drafts have
w3.org URLs
plinss: They'll be served from dev.w3.org URLs
plinss: I'm volunteering to do all the admin work
plinss: what's the big deal?
jdaggett: sounds like extra work for nothing
jdaggett: had breakage previously
plinss: That was because the test copy of the repository isn't synced
* fantasai thinks this discussion should be over now
<going in loops here... glazou?>
* sylvaing lost track of what we're talking about
glazou: pls take to email or irc after call
CSS3 Images
-----------
fantasai: DoC but won't get through them today
<dbaron> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/issues-lc-2012
is the thing to review?
fantasai: all should review DoC and discuss issues during next telecon
glazou: refs need review
fantasai: all are pretty tricky
tab: need other people looking at them
glazou: action on all to review DoC and comment
fantasai suggests discussing Values and Units LC instead, since
we won't get through DoC today
* fantasai wants to get to LC for css3-values, if possible
<fantasai> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2012JanMar/0309.html
Media Queries
-------------
florianr: like to go back to MQ
Florian: current TS is not latest version
fantasai: already have an action item to do this
florianr: will write results for opera
... also some editorial changes, should republish
... question about when
<florianr> http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/2012/02/28/precision-engine
fantasai: suggests passing (opera) build first
fantasai: go to LC then hopefully PR
fantasai: or are they only editorial changes?
florianr: Borderline
florianr: Not changing what they say, just what people understand
them to say
florianr: There's a request on ML for example of using 'rem'
fantasai: no opinion
* fantasai read the thread
* sylvaing is not clear on what we resolved on MQ
florianr: suggest not adding this specific example because it refers
to feature not referenced
glazou: think is not needed
dbaron: but may help to clarify spec text, that units never based on
results of declarations
dbaron: Then it's unambiguous that rem behaves same way
<dbaron> Add to "Relative units in media queries are based on the
initial value."
florianr: sounds good, will edit and republish
<is there a resolution? pls someone type into irc>
RESOLVED: Add after "Relative units in media queries are based on the
initial value" a clarification that units are never based
on the results of declarations, instead of adding 'rem'
example.
dbaron: btw, previous version link in draft is obsolete/previous version:
link in draft points to previous previous version
chrisl: if all editorial, don't need another LC
chrisl: or is proposal to go to PR?
dbaron: possible in one week
dbaron: depends on impl reports
florianr: can have IRs tomorrow
fantasai: agreed
dbaron: mozilla passes all the tests in the repo
florianr: should we list previous editors as current editors or previous?
florian: currently listed as previous
<jdaggett> previous editors seems fine
glazou: no opinion
tab: list as previous
stevez: long tradition
RESOLVED: move editors of MQ who are no longer active to "Former editor"
<dbaron> though sometimes the "previous editors" is editors for a
previous level of the spec, which is sort of different...
Values and Units
----------------
fantasai: Everybody ok with removing the comma between attribute name
and type in the attr() function?
glazou: not fair to ask this now at end of call
<Bert> (I don't like it without the comma, but can live with it.)
peterl: We discussed it at f2f, and howcome was only dissenter.
peterl: And howcome just said he's ok with it.
fantasai: Murakami-san said he's ok with it, too.
RESOLVED: drop comma between attribute name and type in attr()
RESOLVED: publish last call of css3-values
<RRSAgent> http://www.w3.org/2012/02/29-css-minutes.html
<florianr> dbaron: I am not sure if the minutes have the exact wording
you proposed for MQ. Here is what I have, is that what you
proposed: "Relative units in media queries are based on the
initial value, and units are never based on results of
declarations."
<dbaron> florianr, how about changing ", and" to ", which means that" ?
<florianr> that's better.
Received on Thursday, 1 March 2012 02:31:18 UTC