W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2013

[CSSWG] Minutes Telcon 2013-10-02

From: Dael Jackson <daelcss@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 07:21:34 -0400
Message-ID: <CADhPm3u2YnUVt+Gpk9D-e+J3Vgj1ra=w+K+4589sbNxsNuhgLQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
GCPM and Page Floats

  - RESOLVED: Publish a new WD of GCPM.
  - Page Floats will be discussed later when Hakon is on the call.

DOMMatrix, DOMPoint and DOMPointLiteral

  - RESOLVED: Krit and Rik will be co-editors for DOMMatrix, DOMPoint
              and DOMPointLiteral
             misunderstanding and invalid decision during call given the
             request. Correction made by co-chair Daniel (glazou) after
             end of the call.


  - All but one issue has been resolved.
  - astearns requested another week to work through the syntax issues on
      the remaining issue.

  - The different ways that various specs point to elements were
  - Some testing will be run to see what method current implementations
      are using in order to determine how to proceed.

Task force meeting

  - The group expressed an interest to have a few hours meeting with the
      SVG WG during the Wednesday of the January F2F in Seattle.
  - glazou will talk to Bert further about finding out if the WG will
      meet on the Sunday of the November F2F.


  Tantek Çelik
  Dave Cramer
  Elika Etemad
  Daniel Glazman
  Rebecca Hauck
  Israel Hilerio
  Koji Ishii
  Dael Jackson
  Brian Kardell (via IRC)
  Brad Kemper
  Edward O'Connor
  Anton Prowse
  Matt Rakow
  Florian Rivoal
  Simon Sapin
  Dirk Schulze
  Alan Stearns
  Steve Zilles

  Glenn Adams
  Bert Bos
  Peter Linss
  Simon Pieters
  Lea Verou

  glazou: Let's get started.
  glazou: As usual, additions to agenda?
  glazou: I saw one from Simon referring to Elements.
  glazou: One from Dirk about meetings.
  glazou: Correct?
  glazou: Anything else?
  glazou: We could have a short meeting without a lot on the radar

 <bkardell> sorry I am in an area with spotty cell signal, keep losing
 <bkardell> I will follow via irc

GCPM and Page Floats

  glazou: Is Hakon on?
  florian: I don't think he said he'd be here so he said we should take
           it next time.
  glazou: Well, we decided not to discuss without the editor on the call
          and so I'm not willing to discuss without Hakon.

  astearns: There's not much to discuss about GCPM so we could resolve
            for a WD.
  glazou: We did in the F2F.
  glazou: We're just waiting for the doc to be ready.
  florian: If it's done we can green light Hakon.
  glazou: Remember, the working group members decided to decide only if
          the editor here.
  florian: It's not complicated, so we should be okay without the
           author. If it's complicated we need the author.
  glazou: I agree.

  glazou: Do people who made comments want to block?
  dauwhe: I'm okay.
  SimonSapin: I made comments, but I don't think they are blocking WD.

  glazou: Any objections with publication?
  RESOLVED: Publish a new WD of GCPM

  glazou: Given the PageFloats discussion on the mailing list, I suggest
          we wait.

DOMMatrix, DOMPoint and DOMPointLiteral

  Krit1: I'd like to publish a new ED
  krit1: We combined into Geometry API
  krit1: It would be with me and Rik as co-editors
  krit1: Does the WG agree?
  glazou: No objection about co-editors

  glazou: I'd like to hear about publishing new ED
  glazou: I don't think you need permission for ED
  krit1: Ok
  <SimonSapin> krit1: just ED at this point

  glazou: Any object about co-editors?
  RESOLVED: krit and Rik as co-editors for DOMMatrix, DOMPoint and


  astearns: I asked for comments, there's one issue remaining.
  astearns: There's one comment left about basic shape functions,
  astearns: I'd like to work through the syntax and ask for LC next

  glazou: Is this in reference to Hakon's comments?
  astearns: No, Tab and fantasai's comments about taking commas out of
            functional notations.
  astearns: Also about if we need two sections about circles when we
            have radial gradients.
  astearns: Also waiting to hear if it would work for rectangle and

  glazou: So defer to next week

  <BradK_> Regarding GCPM, I hope more people can review this idea (not
          to block publication of working draft):

  <bkardell> ? is there any good simple rule for when to comma/not?
  <stearns> bkardell: there's a link to a principles wiki in fantasai's
           message (and one of my responses)
  <bkardell> not from a parser perspective but just in general
  <bkardell> stearns: thx - sorry, a little behind list


  glazou: Can you paste URL?

  SimonSapin: We have two features that refer to elements
  SimonSapin: This is elements in images 4
  SimonSapin: And cross referencing in GCPM

  SimonSapin: Elements uses an ID selector, GCPM uses a URL
  <SimonSapin> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-gcpm/#cross-references
  SimonSapin: This is two mechanisms to do same thing; we should pick
  <fantasai> This has been an open issue for a while
  * tantek reviews the agenda
  * krit1 tanktek no worries, CSS3 UI isn't on the agenda
   <tantek> krit1 - however the element/id selector thing may affect
            nav-* properties which are in CSS3-UI
  <krit> Maybe we need to go back to LC for CSS3-YI :)
  <tantek> krit1 - nav-* directional properties are implemented with
           test cases per the thread on www-style

  glazou: I understand why we use the URL in GCPM, because a book can be
          a set of docs.
  SimonSapin: URL can be a reference to other documents, Hakon seems OK
              to not do that.

  SimonSapin: The thing with URLs, we need to define how a fragment is
              mapped to an element.
  SimonSapin: This isn't same as HTML

  SimonSapin: We need to define or refer to something that defines
  glazou: There's a prevision that the name shares same value space,
  glazou: All browsers should do the same for most recent HTML.
  glazou: In practice when you use fragment identity in URL it
          references to one element if it's a name or an arbitrary

  SimonSapin: And that's HTML?
  glazou: Yes.
  SimonSapin: Do we want them to depend on HTML?
  SimonSapin: Or do we need a definition that works for any document
  glazou: I'm not sure I understand.

  glazou: Fragment identifier points to one item.
  SimonSapin: As far as I know CSS can work on anything including HTML.
  SimonSapin: Are we fine with changing that?

  <tantek> q+ to note that nav-* directional properties use just "#id"
           as value
  * tantek refers to http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-ui/#nav-dir

  glazou: What is the spec again that defines fragment identities?
  glazou: Outside of CSS?
  glazou: There's a doc in the consortium space making the relationship
  SimonSapin: That's what I'm missing.
  glazou: Since there's a potential solution without changing specs, we
          should keep this to the mailing list.
  SimonSapin: That's fine.

  tantek: Sorry to make this more complex, there's a third method used
          in CSS UI.
  tantek: It's similar to element, but not an element function.
  tantek: Up, down, etc all take values similar to #ID.
  tantek: Not only that, we have test cases and two implementors.

  tantek: I thought I should point it out, but I don't have strong
          feeling on syntax.
  tantek: But we should keep that in mind;
  tantek: There's real world content using it.

  SimonSapin: Is that in terms with selectors?
  tantek: Completely inline.
  glazou: I guess question is is # a fragment identifier?
  tantek: The wording right now is fragment URL.
  tantek: It's weak working.
  <florian> The <id> value consists of a '#' character followed by an
            identifier, similar to a fragment identifier in a URL. It
            indicates the element to which the focus is navigated to in
            response to directional navigation input respective to the
            specific property.

  <fantasai> If it was thought of as a url, it probably would have used
  <fantasai> with some limitations in prose.

  glazou: So.
  tantek: It's similar to fragment ID in URL?
  tantek: It's explanatory, not normative text.

  tantek: Is there a test to see which is used?
  SimonSapin: Yes
  tantek: If you did that test with Nav and checked in implementors.
  florian: Opera implemented, not sure other one.
  tantek: Sounds like you could construct test with name and nav in
          Opera and see what happens.
  <florian> Note that it is the old opera that supports that.
  <florian> old opera = presto

  glazou: We have 2 using fragments, and 1 selector
  tantek: We're not sure.
  tantek: If implementors treat it like a selector we're okay.
  SimonSapin: It's a bit undefined.
  tantek: I can define it like the implementors are using it.
  glazou: So take back to LC and wait for reports on test.

  glazou: Is that okay SimonSapin, Tantek
  SimonSapin: Yes.
  Tantek: Yes.

Task force meeting

  Krit: We agreed to meet in Seattle at the same time as the SVG WG.
  Krit: Should we meet together on Wed?
  glazou: I think it would be useful.
  glazou: Yes.
  glazou: Not the whole day, but for a few hours.

  * sgalineau Note: CSSWG currently booked for 1/27-1/29; FXTF would be
              on 1/29. SVG would be 1/29-1/31.

  glazou: Any other comments?
  glazou: That was a light agenda and we exhausted it.

  florian: I won't be at next F2F.
  glazou: Me neither.

  SteveZ: Any update on if we'll have a Sunday meeting?
  glazou: I didn't hear back.
  glazou: You saw forum; it's complex to contact hotel.
  glazou: Not sure if we have a room, I haven't heard a single word.
  SteveZ: We're getting to where we need to make airline reservations.

  <rhauck> Registration is also open for TestTWF for TPAC attendees.
  <rhauck> If you are planning on coming to TestTWF and haven't gotten
           your TPAC registration code, please contact me.

  ACTION: glazou ping Bert to see if have reservation
  <trackbot> Created ACTION-585 - Ping Bert to see if have reservation
             [on Daniel Glazman - due 2013-10-0.

  glazou: Anything else?
  glazou: Thanks everyone

[Meeting ended]

  <glazou> krit1, I misunderstood your request today
  <glazou> you asked for a new ED
  <krit1> yes
  <glazou> and that does indeed require WG approval
  <glazou> I was mistaken, sorry for that
  <krit1> so do we need to take it up next week again?
  <glazou> so let me correct things by email and ask if there is any
  <krit1> ok
  <glazou> if there is no objection, we'll consider resolved
  <glazou> ok for you?
  <krit1> glazou: yes, that is fine for me
  <glazou> thanks krit1 and sorry for the mishmash
  <glazou> and thanks sgalineau for the heads up

  misunderstanding and invalid decision during call given the request.
  Correction made by co-chair Daniel after end of the call.
Received on Thursday, 3 October 2013 11:22:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:51:02 UTC