W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2012

[CSSWG] Minutes TPAC Sun 2012-10-28 AM I: Style Attributes, Writing Modes, Text, Text Decoration

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:28:20 -0800
Message-ID: <50A33A04.3080902@inkedblade.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Style Attributes

   - Reviewed test failures: various parsing bugs and some trouble
     handling xml:base.
   - Plan to move to REC: get two implementations that parse conformantly,
     mark xml:base tests out-of-scope.

Writing Modes

   - RESOLVED: Defer to level 4 the 'text-combine-mode' property, and all
               values for 'text-combine-horizontal' except "none" and "all".
   - RESOLVED: Publish a new WD of Writing Modes when UTC releases a new
               UTR-50 report, or Nov 15, whichever comes first.

Text and Text Decoration

   - RESOLVED: Publish Text Decor as FPWD and Text as WD for next week.

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

   Tab Atkins
   David Baron
   Bert Bos
   Arron Eicholz
   Elika Etemad
   Sylvain Galineau
   Daniel Glazman
   Koji Ishii
   John Jansen
   Taichi Kawabata (NTT)
   Chris Lilley
   Peter Linss
   Edward O'Connor
   François Remy (observer, Sunday and Monday only)
   Florian Rivoal (Sunday only)
   Leif Arne Storset
   Steve Zilles

<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/10/28-css-irc

Scribe: TabAtkins


   [discussion over what to discuss, given our attendance today]
   <dbaron> http://wiki.csswg.org/planning/tpac-2012#agenda

Style Attributes

   glazou: This doc should be a rec already.
   fantasai: There are still test failures.
   glazou: Right, but it's so simple, and so core. What can we do to fix this?
   dbaron: What do we fail? xml:base ordering?
   hober: WebKit fails some of the parsing tests related to braces.
   <hober> http://test.csswg.org/shepherd/testcase/style-attr-braces-001/
   <fantasai> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css-style-attr/nightly-unstable/html4/toc.htm
   <plinss> current results: http://test.csswg.org/harness/results/CSS-STYLE-ATTR_DEV/

   florian: None of those sound difficult to solve, just priorities, right?
   dbaron: Ours is a bit harder - we'd have to change the timing of how we
           parse attributes.
   dbaron: We *should* technically be doing it, but xml:base is pretty
           irrelevant, frankly.
   fantasai: I think we should fix the parsing issues, and then deal with
             xml:base somehow else - remove it as a normative part of the
             spec, and state that it's basically an implementation failure
             that's unrelated to this spec.
   dbaron: Could Trident pass this test suite?
   <fantasai> http://test.csswg.org/harness/test/CSS-STYLE-ATTR_DEV/style-attr-cascade-006/
   TabAtkins: As far as I can tell, Trident fails the first parsing test.

   florian: Okay, so it looks like we could probably just get people to fix
            the parsing attrs, then resolve xml:base to be non-normative?
   fantasai: Re: xml:base, the spec basically just defers to XML/HTML
             (the host language).
   fantasai: So you can make a good argument that this isn't a CSS issue,
             but rather an XML one.
   florian: So move the test to another spec?
   fantasai: Yeah.
   TabAtkins: This should maybe be something to bring up in HTML, since
              if FF isn't passing xml:base tests in CSS, it's probably
              nonconformant to some part of HTML's XML parser in general.
   glazou: Okay, so let's get this done asap.  This seems like another Rec
           at low cost for us.
   <Rossen> (re: http://test.csswg.org/harness/test/CSS-STYLE-ATTR)
            Trident 6, ie10 is passing it but we fail in Trident 5, ie9

Writing Modes

   <plinss> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-writing-modes/

   fantasai: Status is that Tab and I removed Appendix D (moved to Sizing
             spec) and fixed a lot of errors in the orthogonal flow section.
   fantasai: Open issues are that UTR-50 is way out of date.
   fantasai: Second is the naming of directions.
   fantasai: Third is that jdaggett needs to figure out what issues he
             wants to file and we need to deal with them.
   fantasai: Fourth is that there are a bunch of values in text-combine
             that aren't implemented, so we'll probably drop them to move
             to last call.

   Koji: For UTR-50, Laurentiu and I had a conf call last week, and we're
         making progress toward an updated data file.
   Koji: There will be a UTC meeting next week and I'll be there, so the
         hope is that the updated draft with data will be published next
   fantasai: So we should publish an updated WD in conjunction with that,
             then request LC after everyone's had time to review it.
   florian: And that updated draft is considered good enough for our use?
   Koji: It's still a "proposed draft", which is similar to our WDs.
   fantasai: But it's not going to be horribly wrong, like the current data.
   Koji: The process is that the UTC releases the proposed draft, then
         there's a review period.
   Koji: If the review gives only small changes, they're made and it goes
         right to "Rec".
   Koji: If there's too much changes, there may be another proposed draft,
         and another review period.
   fantasai: For our purposes, any update that incorporates the fixes we
             need will be good enough.  Any additional issues are their
             issues, not ours.

   TabAtkins: We can talk about the naming issues tomorrow, when Glenn is here.
   fantasai: the i18n group had an opinion too.
   Koji: What happened to the joint meeting with them?
   plinss: No reply from them.
   fantasai: I think if we don't get a solid resolution on it this week
             it's okay - we can publish with it marked as an issue.

   fantasai: So we should still publish next week.
   Koji: I would like the terminology issue split from writing modes.
   fantasai: We can't write the spec without the terminology.
   fantasai: So maybe we can publish next week?
   florian: What about the text-combine issues?
   fantasai: I'm okay to leave them in there for now. But we can bring them up.
   Koji: If you publish next week, I'm slightly concerned the UTR-50 data
         may not be available yet.
   fantasai: Okay.  If necessary, we can delay for another week for their data.
             But we can't wait, like, another 3 months for them to publish.
             We've already been held up since June, when they decided the
             relevant things.

   Koji: For text-combine, you said you're going to leave it as an issue?
   fantasai: I'm okay with leaving it as an issue, or to just drop everything
             but "none" and "all" for now, since that's what's implemented.
   fantasai: So we'd drop text-combine-mode, and drop all values of
             text-combine-horizontal except "none" and "all".
             By "drop", I mean defer until level 4.
   florian: Dropping them just means you need more markup to do some things,
            but nothing is made impossible by their lack.
   fantasai: Right. And it's better to have that than to hold up the rest
             of the draft.
   florian: And the other property?
   fantasai: Leave it as "auto" for now.  It just means the UA does whatever
             it thinks is smart.
   florian: Was there an issue with leaving the "no-compress" option in?
   Koji: There are a couple of unresolved issues with it.
   florian: Okay.  Well, if no one implements it anyway, I guess we can
            push it to next level.
   glazou: Writing Mode is normatively linked from epub.  You're the liaison
           for them.  How will this affect epub3?
   fantasai: Not at all. epub3 profiled these properties - they only include
            the "none" and "all" values.
   glazou: Okay.
   RESOLVED: Defer to level 4 the 'text-combine-mode' property, and all
             values for 'text-combine-horizontal' except "none" and "all".
   RESOLVED: Publish a new WD of Writing Modes when UTC releases a new
             UTR-50 report, or Nov 15, whichever comes first.

CSS3 Text

   fantasai: Text and Text Decoration have been split.
   fantasai: text-justify needed more examples - this hasn't been done yet.
   fantasai: Text Decoration is ready for FPWD, though.
   fantasai: I know of no open issues against Text.

   dbaron: how close is this to LC?
   fantasai: I think we can resolve to publish FPWD of Text Decor and WD
             of Text, then ask for LC of Text at the next telcon, after
             people have time to review.
   fantasai: Plan is that Koji and I will finish all the outstanding edits
             in the next week or two; things we've already decided, just
             need to write the text.
   fantasai: And with that publication, request everyone to review the
             draft and tell us how much time they need for LC.
   fantasai: Then the WG can request LC for both drafts.
   * leaverou is there a link to the text decoration ED?
   <leaverou> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-text-decor-3/

   fantasai: So if you have an issue, file it.
   fantasai: Otherwise, does anyone have an objection to publish FP/WD
             for both next week?
   RESOLVED: Publish Text Decor as FPWD and Text as WD for next week.

   plinss: There was an issue in the wiki about text decoration.
   fantasai: That was about the underline position thing, which we fixed
             a week or two ago.
   plinss: So no open issues?
   fantasai: None that I know of.
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2012 06:37:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:21 UTC