- From: Dael Jackson <daelcss@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 20:30:29 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
Counter Styles -------------- - RESOLVED: New LCWD for Counter Styles Backgrounds and Borders ----------------------- - RESOLVED: New CR for Backgrounds and Borders Display Module -------------- - RESOLVED: New WD for Display Module Overflow Issue -------------- - RESOLVED: Adopt proposal (available here: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-align/#overflow-scroll-position) CSS Text -------- - RESOLVED: Accept the proposed resolution for issue 4 - RESOLVED: Reject issue 51 - For issue 21, the group agreed with making the soft hyphen the only place you can break in a word as long as there's an added contingency to handle words so long that one part still doesn't fit on the line after the soft break. - RESOLVED: Reject the issue (65) - Issues 59 and 72 are both waiting on feedback from Microsoft and will be addressed at the next F2F at the latest. BECSS to Notes -------------- - RESOLVED: Move the three documents (behavior extensions, hyperlinks, and marquee) to notes ===== FULL MINUTES BELOW ====== Present: Glenn Adams Rossen Atanassov Tab Atkins David Baron Bert Bos Dave Cramer Alex Critchfield Elika Etemad Sylvain Galineau Daniel Glazman Koji Ishii Dael Jackson Chris Lilley Peter Linss Mike Miller Shinyu Murakami Anton Prowse Liam Quin Matt Rakow Florian Rivoal Simon Sapin Alan Stearns Lea Verou Steve Zilles Regrets: Sarah Holton Simon Pieters Dirk Schulz Greg Whitworth Scribe: dael glazou: Let's start. glazou: Any extra items? glazou: I have one. glazou: We're not far from the F2F and we need to add topics on the wiki. glazou: Please spend a few minutes thinking about it and adding items for the agenda. Counter Styles -------------- <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Aug/0194.html TabAtkins: It was published as LC a year ago. TabAtkins: When the period ended, there was still lots of good issues being produced by Xidorn. We think it's stable now, so we need to publish again. TabAtkins: Obviously there's substantive changes, so we want another LC. Standard 4 week period, I think glazou: DoC shows mostly green. I saw Xidorn added a few messages to the list. TabAtkins: I think the last message was "have you published a new draft?" but let's see. TabAtkins: Most recent items were in June and they were in the DoC. glazou: He has one on the 29th of July. Was it addressed? TabAtkins: That was the can you do a new LC message. glazou: No, there was one thing to be fixed in that message. TabAtkins: Yeah. Those were typos and they were fixed. glazou: Okay. glazou: Opinions or questions about publishing? Bert: I'm in favor <astearns> +1 to publish glazou: Me too. <sgalineau> no objection florian: I haven't been able to see details, but at a high level it looked fine. <ChrisL> +1 to publish dbaron: I'm in favor. I'd like to see it go to CR. TabAtkins: Me too, but per our requirements we need another pass before CR. Rossen: I just joined, what's this? glazou: Counter Styles Rossen: It's fine. RESOLVED: New LCWD for Counter Styles TabAtkins: I'll put it together this afternoon, Bert. Bert: Okay. <ChrisL> Bert, I will be traveling tomorrow so best if you do it * Bert to ChrisL: OK Backgrounds and Borders ----------------------- <glazou> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2014JulSep/0119.html TabAtkins: Is fantasai around? TabAtkins: I can do the publication request. fantasai: We have a...we're ready for a new publication for backgrounds and borders. Let me see if I can pull DoC. <fantasai> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-backgrounds-3/issues-lc-2014 fantasai: If you look at DoC...Main things we accepted most of the requests. We rejected comments from i18n about logical keywords because that's going into level 4. We rejected focus rings as out of scope, but explained how it works. fantasai: The main thing I'm concerned about is the spread radius formula that we didn't get a lot of feedback on, but all the comments were addressed. glazou: Opinions? Questions? ChrisL: i18n was okay with deferring to level 4? fantasai: Yes. <ChrisL> no objection then TabAtkins: I helped prepare the draft, so I approve of publication. <Bert> +1 to CR ChrisL: What was the problem with spread radius? Just no comments? <ChrisL> ok if its implemented then fine fantasai: We believe it's correct, it's just no one on the author side said it was good or bad except BradK said he was skeptical and leaverou was in favor <astearns> we implemented it for the margin-box value of shape-outside MaRakow: I gave feedback a while ago but didn't get a chance to look at it, but I think it would be okay. ChrisL: Can I have a good link to the DoC? <ChrisL> http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-css3-background-20140116/ is 404 <fantasai> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-backgrounds-3/ * fantasai will fix that glazou: Any objections against a new CR? <ChrisL> +1 to publish <leaverou> +1 to publish [silence] glazou: Are people in favor? RESOLVED: New CR for Backgrounds and Borders * Bert to Chris: shall I start the CR process? Or do you want to do it? Display Module -------------- <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Aug/0214.html TabAtkins: We technically got a resolution to publish in January, but I've made enough changes...I'm sorry, we did publish a FPWD in January. TabAtkins: I hadn't made the edits we talked about in January F2F. Since then I've done a few other tweeks. I'd like to request a first WD. And fantasai, this is where you wanted to talk about merging? fantasai: That was for the upcoming F2F. But we wanted an update with the changes from the January F2F and we made some changes. We defined blockification and inlinification. We explain how it works for all display types. fantasai: We added a glossary of CSS2.1 terms. We folded in the entire proposal as asked. We also added hide value. fantasai: We wanted to have this make the box appear and disappear, not be about how it displays. This is the name we came up with. It's box-suppress with show, hide, and none. florian: I think the value names are fine, but for the property name I like the old one better. TabAtkins: It seems odd to make it look like it's a long hand when it's not. fantasai: That prefix might not be a bad thing. We wanted to make it clear this is about making the box go away or come back. florian: I think I liked it better prefixed with display, but the values and behaviors are fine to me. <bkardell_> +1 seems odd to look longhand and not be fantasai: Other comments? florian: Since we're moving away from having a LC, maybe we should bikeshed earlier? fantasai: I think we can publish now and bikeshed at the F2F. glazou: Previous WD is quite old so we should republish. glazou: Any objections to publishing? RESOLVED: New WD for Display Module Overflow Issue -------------- <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Aug/0286.html TabAtkins: This was from earlier. TabAtkins: dholbert had the reverse flex box. If it's column- reverse the initial scroll is set to the bottom. He says this makes sense and would like the flexbox spec to state this and create interoperability. TabAtkins: fantasai said she thinks it should be defined properly in alignment so that the Chrome behavior would fall out <fantasai> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-align/#overflow-scroll-position TabAtkins: So it now says if you align with an edge, you align the initial scroll position with that edge. That makes the correct behavior for flex happen because the flex start begins at the end. So it current would work correctly. TabAtkins: We think this is reasonable and we captured it in alignment already. We wanted to see if there are any objections to this approach. glazou: Questions? fantasai: This means that if you have a scrollable thing or don't, the initial alignment looks the same. The overflow is off to the other side from the alignment. Rossen: What happens when you have alignment and writing mode direction as opposite? fantasai: You set the scroll position according to the alignment and that accounts for the writing mode. So the default will match aligning to the start-start corner. This is about aligning on the scrollable element itself. fantasai: This is the property that says all my contents are aligned this way. So a scrollable box all contents are the scrollable area. dbaron: Key point is that the default references is, to the alignment does matter. dbaron: I'm a little worried that this doesn't affect margin auto, or text align, but I think I'm okay. TabAtkins: I think it's okay. Text alignment is another thing, but not as big of a deal. I could be wrong. Rossen: I'm okay with it as well. It makes sense. glazou: Anyone with an opinion or comment? Anyone else? No objection? RESOLVED: Adopt proposal (available here: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-align/#overflow-scroll-position) TabAtkins: Anyone with comments later, bring them to the mailing list. This is large and I want to make sure everyone is aware of it. CSS Text -------- <glazou> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2014JulSep/0123.html fantasai: Let me find the message <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Aug/0256.html glazou: The message is linked from what I posted above. That one? fantasai: Yes. I wanted to go over some things to make sure everyone is aware of them. fantasai: There's two issues about UAX14. We accepted something that breaks UAX14. There's the break character that's supposed to represent images and a glue character which is no break. So we interoperable-ly ignore the no break when it's between that character and a replaced element. fantasai: We had to change the spec to say we're reordering so that you violate the glue rule. florian: Do we have usage data? fantasai: I suspect this is well embedded because it's been around for a long time. We could dig out netscape to figure out how long. fantasai: People have relied on this in tables to put images together a lot. fantasai: I don't know how else to get usage data. florian: But there's a reasonable assumption it's common. fantasai: I think anyone trying to get not breaking would be frustrated. glenn: Have you discussed this with unicode? fantasai: I haven't. All browsers are interoperable on this. People have been relying on images doing this so we should change the spec. I'm not happy with the result, it would be great to follow unicode. fantasai: If implementors have a way to evaluate breakage that would be great. ChrisL: Is it possible the unicode is wrong and we should contact them? fantasai: I don't think we should encourage anyone that isn't backwards...The unicode makes sense. I'd prefer that unicode is correct and we have a backwards compatibility constraint. If browser implementors think we can change that's great. We're stuck for web browsers, but no one else should have to deal. <ChrisL> OK that seems fair enough as justification to me ChrisL: That seems fine to me. glazou: Any objections? fantasai: Or does anyone think we change? glenn: Have you talked with browser vendors about changing? [silence] glazou: So, let's accept the resolution RESOLVED: Accept the proposed resolution for issue 4 <fantasai> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-text/issues-lc-2013#issue-69 fantasai: Next was the i18n group asked us to nominatively reference UAX14. We say here's some references... fantasai: The first problem is we're not sure if UAX14 is web compatible. Second is a lot of the breaks in the pairs table aren't okay without prioritization. You'll get weird results. Browsers don't do prioritization. fantasai: So we said no we won't normatively reference. We need to evaluate and we don't want to tackle that in this level of text. I think i18n didn't respond to that. <koji> I think this is actually issue #51 file:///Users/kojiishi/src/csswg/specs/css-text/issues-lc-2013.html#issue-51 fantasai: It's not issue 69...sorry. fantasai: That's that (below). <fantasai> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-text/issues-lc-2013#issue-51 glenn: What do we tell users that don't want to break? fantasai: We don't normatively define line breaking rules in CSS. fantasai: If people want to not break, some characters are normatively referenced. the ones that are about control characters for line breaking. The others are informatively referenced. <fantasai> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-text/#line-break-details <fantasai> glenn, BK, CR, LF, CM, NL, and SG are normatively referenced <fantasai> also WJ, ZW, and GL dbaron: My experience has been when people try and implement a new set of line breaking rules it has behavior that people don't expect. I don't remember how much of it was JIS X 4051 and how much was UAX 14, but people would try a new line breaker and it didn't match the expected results. glazou: Let's go back to the current issue, 51. Anyone object against a rejection of the original comment? ??: I'm fine with that. <glenn> abstain glazou: So the proposal is to back that rejection. <SteveZ> I agree that we are not ready to normatively define line breaking RESOLVED: Reject issue 51 <glazou> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-text/issues-lc-2013#issue-21 fantasai: Next was soft hyphens and hyphenation. <astearns> +1 to this change fantasai: We had said if you have a soft hyphen, that is prioritized. Epub said it was breaking anywhere close to soft hyphen and that was causing problems. So we said that if there's a soft hyphen you can only break at the soft hyphen, not anywhere else in the word. dauwhe: I agree. * glazou is ok with the change florian: So what happens if the word is too long? Any way you can break again? fantasai: I think it's just unbreakable. florian: If the word is too long, it's good if CSS is smart. fantasai: But most words aren't that long. * liam thinks fantasai doesn't speak German or Finnish ;-) * fantasai fair glenn: I've found in Thai that they often have long things that are space separated. It's a cheap way of breaking without a dictionary. fantasai: Shouldn't they be using zero width space? glenn: I'm saying that we're seen that. astearns: This is used to turn off algorithmic hyphenation when it has an inappropriate result? fantasai: Yes. florian: I'm just wondering if the word is too long, should you say that if the additional break is needed you can say use automatic hyphenation and then if needed other break rules apply? Would that be useful? fantasai: I think that's a good question and I don't know. florian: I don't have an answer either, but I think it's worth answering. glazou: So does this mean we need more investigation? fantasai: I don't know how to get the answer. dauwhe: "If needed" sounds pretty complex. fantasai: I think in this case it's if the word is too long. bert: But it may depend on what's on the next line. <liam> Barrow-in-Fur­ness <glazou> « Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz » <glazou> or «λοπαδοτεμαχοσελαχογαλεοκρανιολειψανοδριμυποτριμματοσιλφιοκαραβομελιτοκατακεχυμενοκιχλεπικοσσυφοφαττοπεριστεραλεκτρυονοπτοκεφαλλιοκιγκλοπελειολαγῳοσιραιοβαφητραγανοπτερύγων» for Lea * leaverou glazou: is that supposed to mean anything? It’s hard to understand it, but it seems like random words stitched together :p * glazou Lea, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_words#Greek <glazou> ancient greek then * leaverou glazou thanks! I learned something new :) <glazou> :) fantasai: No, If you broke at the soft hyphen and you still can't fit...florian is talking about if you have a long word, you break at a soft hyphen, and the second half of the word is longer than the line. There's just this half a word. Are you then allowed to break at an auto-hyphen point, with that being the only thing on the line? bert: So not with a float? Or if you have another way to break the letters? It's hard to say it's absolutely needed. <astearns> the correct solution for that case is to add more soft hyphens to the word. You started adding them, so you need to add as many as may be required liam: This is the same with a word that can't be hyphenated. Usually systems give up and use a hyphen. ??: But we're the ones saying you can't break. liam: You can get something similar with place names. I pasted one example above. There's two questions, can you break at the explicit hyphen or can you break at other places in the compound word? florian: I'd break at the algorithmic hyphen points. <SteveZ> for what is it worth, it is also possible that neither half of the broken word fit on the very short line fantasai: I'm okay to say that if there's no other break points, if the word had a soft hyphen and you already broke there, you can then auto-hyphen. dauwhe: I can live with that. It's a rare situation. <liam> Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsge­setz liam: Not only if you already broke there. You may not fit the text before as with the crazy example above. dauwhe: So only hyphenate at the soft hyphen unless something really bad happens. fantasai: That seems reasonable to me and if we need to we can revisit. glazou: Okay. fantasai: Let's do issue 65 <fantasai> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-text/issues-lc-2013#issue-6 fantasai: That was i18n asking for more details on how Indic does letter spacing. We said no because we don't have the knowledge to do that. The UA is given the ability to do the right thing and you can figure that right thing out. florian: You have a note below in your e-mail that Chrome does an impressive thing. fantasai: Yes, but explaning Indic would be a spec to itself. ChrisL: There is an Indic language layout task force and we can defer to them until they come back? That allows us to defer the definition of "correctly" until they come to it. fantasai: I think it should be a separate document that we can refer to. glazou: I agree with fantasai <florian> +1 glazou: So do we want the rejection? Any objections? RESOLVED: Reject the issue (65) fantasai: 72 is about control characters is waiting for Microsoft. fantasai: So that's open on you Microsoft people. <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Aug/0217.html fantasai: We're coming to consensus about cross inline properties. That might go into fonts. florian: What's the proposal? <fantasai> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-text/issues-lc-2013#issue-59 fantasai: I'm not sure I'm quite clear on it. fantasai: We initially rejected this because distribute has been around since IE6. It's also fairly true it's not clear and doesn't match other values of the spec. This would be clearer and just by looking you can guess what it means. fantasai: We'd have to keep distribute, but should we make it legacy and have inter-character. florian: The problem is with scripting. Is this often used with scripts? fantasai: I can't image people would except arcane cases. dbaron: I'm not a fan of aliasing. I'd rather not have it. florian: The more scripts are involved, the less I like aliasing. But we have to define it. glenn: It's a serialization problem. fantasai: I think we were making it more of a duplicate rather than an alias. florian: I don't feel great, but I can live with it depending on browser vendors. Rossen: I wasn't here and I have to catch up on this. Can we table this to next week or the F2F? By that time I can talk to my tech guys and have a position on this. fantasai: Is this control characters or this one? Rossen: This one. glazou: 59 right? Rossen: 59. fantasai: I don't mind waiting another week. Rossen: Control characters is the same. glazou: Okay. Rossen: What's the urgency. Are you trying to push so it's ready for LC at F2F? Or is it okay at F2F? fantasai: We want to publish LC at the F2F at the latest. I think it will need to go there. fantasai: We can discuss there, but we want to be able to resolve. Rossen: I can have a response at the F2F at the latest. I'll see if I can get on the call next week from London. glazou: We only have 5 minutes. Anything we can do on text? fantasai: Do we have another topic? We can move on. glazou: So we have #6 or #8 on the agenda TabAtkins: I don't think we can do 6. BECSS to Notes -------------- <florian> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec#dead-need-to-be-turned-into-notes TabAtkins: There's a handful of old specs that show up on TR, but they're dead. They don't even appear on our repository. Per W3C we're supposed to gravestone and make them into notes. Does anyone object to doing it with these? The list is on the wiki linked above. fantasai: Behavior extensions, hyperlinks, and marquee. fantasai: Can we rescind a non-recommendation? Bert: Yeah. * ChrisL talks into a muted phone and says the same as Bert pretty much fantasai: It would be nice to have styling to say don't use. <SteveZ> a tombstone water mark <ChrisL> we can't rescind it but we can publish as a note florian: Blink dropped support for marquee, but that implementation was not even in line with the spec. TabAtkins: So any objections to these three being re-published as gravestone notes? glazou: No objections from me. Strong support. Bert: I agree. As an additional point, I put this topic on the F2F topic list. There are others that might need to be updated. TabAtkins: These were the super obvious ones. There were others that would need discussion. * dauwhe +1 to discussing others at F2F glazou: Any objection to moving the three doc to notes? RESOLVED: Move the three documents (behavior extensions, hyperlinks, and marquee) to notes TabAtkins: I'll prepare if you'll publish, Bert? Bert: Okay. fantasai: Are we okay to publish counter styles tomorrow? TabAtkins: Bert did a pre-request so he got an okay. <ChrisL> nice work bert fantasai: Excellent. Thank you. glazou: That's the top of the hour. Thanks everyone. <ChrisL> my regrets for next week (returning from SVG f2f)
Received on Thursday, 21 August 2014 00:30:57 UTC