- From: Dael Jackson <daelcss@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 19:26:17 -0500
- To: www-style@w3.org
Seattle F2F and TTWF -------------------- - Everyone was reminded to put their status on the wiki as well as any dietary restrictions. - People were also asked to add agenda items to the wiki. Charter ------- - Plh updated the group on the status of the charter and hopes to have feedback before or during the F2F. CSS Fragmentation ----------------- - The group discussed clarifying if fragments are separate boxes or parts of the same box. - This led to discussion of how other specs act and what wording they use to identify elements, fragments, and boxes. - Discussion on the naming and behavior issues will be discussed further on the mailing list. - Later in the call, fantasai asked about possibly releasing a new working draft. She'll go over some comments and request a resolution next week. Shapes LC --------- - Astearns brought the group up to date on the comments he's received. CSS Syntax CR ------------- - SimonSapin has made a few non-normative changes to clarify. - He will contact the I18N WG again to make sure they've reviewed Syntax and don't have any comments. =====FULL MINUTES BELOW====== Present: Glenn Adams Rossen Atanassov Tab Atkins David Baron Bert Bos Tantek Çelik Dave Cramer Justin Erenkrantz Elika Etemad Simon Fraser Sylvain Galineau Daniel Glazman Dael Jackson Philippe Le Hégaret Chris Lilley Anton Prowse Florian Rivoal Andrey Rybka Simon Sapin Dirk Schulze Alan Stearns Leif Arne Storset Lea Verou Steve Zilles Regrets: Adenilson Cavalcanti Bruno de Oliveira Abinader Peter Linss Simon Pieters ScribeNick: Dael Seattle F2F and TTWF -------------------- glazou: Any extra items? glazou: Is sylvaing here? <silence> glazou: So sylvaing sent a message about updating wiki w/ flight and dietary needs if you have any. glazou: He also says we'll have own name and password for network. glazou: Please update wiki ASAP with your status. <ChrisL> http://wiki.csswg.org/planning/seattle-2014#participants astearns: I don't have anything to add. Sunday beforehand we have TTWF. astearns: I encourage everyone to sign up. astearns: If you can't make it, send in tests you need written so we have tasks. glazou: We also need to fill in the wiki with agenda items. glazou: The F2F is coming soon, so we need proposals. glazou: plinss and I will review proposals ASAP, but he's in London glazou: Anything else on the F2F? glazou: Is sylvaing there? glazou: sylvaing, hello! glazou: We were about to close Seattle F2F. Anything to add besides what you said in your e-mail? sylvaing: No. One new piece is a meet up Wednesday night with local community groups. sylvaing: If there's any comments on that, let us know. glazou: Okay. We may be leaving Wednesday night. sylvaing: There's not an easy time. We can check if Monday works. glazou: Okay. Let's move on. * plh apologizes in advance for leaving the f2f early Charter ------- glazou: We need an update on the charter extension. plh: I was contacted about that recently. plh: It's going to review inside W3C and we'll hopefully have feedback by F2F. plh: If not feedback, we can continue with discussion within the group. plh: Hopefully we should be able to send for final review the week after F2F or during it. plh: I do know that since it's a draft it hasn't done anything, but I do expect some feedback. I think it's as good as we can expect. glazou: There's an argument for the extension. We're expecting progress on the super group front. glazou: That will allow us to make a different charter in 6 months. plh: Right now the end of the charter is Feb 2015. plh: So 12 months. plh: I guess that's fine. plh: That makes sense. <ChrisL> That is fine, we can always recharter before it expires. glazou: That will let us have time with web consortium to discuss the super group plh: That's where we are. glazou: Questions, comments? CSS Fragmentation ----------------- <glazou> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2014JanMar/0009.html glazou: We have request to discuss from krit. krit: I created an example with border radius. krit: Fragmentation means that I had multi-column with an element across the columns. krit: The question is how do we define the different fragments? krit: The spec isn't clear if it's one box split into different parts or if the border is drawn between columns krit: I think it's essential for many parts to define this clearly. krit: Do we create different boxes upon fragmentation? rossen: Yes. rossen: I've been reading your comments and we can consider that every fragment is a box and has its own model. rossen: The way the border is controlled on break is done by using the border box decoration property. rossen: That gives you the ability to have or don't have padding on break. rossen: So, to further elaborate as to if there is one box after fragmentation, I think that's not correct rossen: Correct is that this is collection of boxes. Fragment flow is the collection, not multiple fragments. krit: To be clear, I'd like a resolution to document how it works. rossen: What type of resolution? One to have us edit the spec is fine. krit: I just want resolution that each fragment creates its own box rossen: Yes. * fantasai is confused. fantasai: The entire point of introducing the term 'fragment' was to distinguish it from box. fantasai: In CSS2.1, both the abstract layout object was called a box, and the pieces of it were called a box. We decided to call the pieces "fragments" to distinguish them from the abstract layout object "box". krit: That's fine as long as the spec says that each fragment has its own piece. dbaron: There's a bunch of existing specs that assume one behavior or the other. Mostly they assume each fragment is its own box. dbaron: I'm fine either way, but the resolution needs to say it's not changing existing specs and they might disagree. rossen: I'm with you. rossen: I think that it being closer to CSS 2.1 for inline boxes and the fact they are boxes is that right way to go. rossen: So should we have resolution. fantasai: I think that's dependent on us for fragmentation. krit: I think it's every spec. Rossen: We can see what spec has references and see if there are differences. Rossen: I can't think of anything but multi column, box, and page that talk about this. Rossen: For those specs I think they're only talking boxes. SimonSapin: We also have box generation where they don't have size or position. fantasai: What do we call it is the problem. The full name is box fragment. fantasai: The CSS2.1 spec confuses elements and boxes as well as fragments and boxes. The abstract layout object "box" is sometimes called an "element", sometimes called a "box". And box fragments are also called "boxes". fantasai: So the content is a box, it gets split, and the it's both called box. fantasai: So we need to call them both box, but be able to distinguish between them. rossen: This is why we used fragments to distinguish. Is that the confusing part? krit: Is fragment how it differs? When a fragment has its own padding it isn't defined. fantasai: Maybe call it box fragment and box element and they can go by all those names? <fantasai> We can call them both boxes, or we can call them fragments / elements SimonSapin: I think it is defined by the box-decoration-break property. rossen: That's what I was saying a few minutes ago. krit: It's not clear which box you mean rossen: We mean fragment box, but we can be clear. fantasai: In fragmentation spec we use fragment when we mean a box fragment and box when we mean the abstract layout object box. glazou: What is the action for the near term? fantasai: We need a set of terms to agree to first. I propose box-element and box-fragment dbaron: I don't like box-element. <antonp> Me neither. <glazou> Let's rename this at CR anyway. fantasai: The problem is we have a lot of specs that use box and/or element interchangeably. If we want to be compatible with those specs as dbaron wants, we need a term that can be shortened to either. dbaron: I think specs that use the term "element" to refer to something other than an element in the DOM are wrong and should be fixed. <astearns> +1 to dbaron - should not propagate the problem of conflating boxes with elements. rossen: Can we have element-box and fragment-box instead? krit: I like element-box ???: I'm fine with box-fragment. <leaverou> Not every fragmented box is an element, it could be a pseudo-element <ChrisL> I like fragment-box. Anything with 'element' in there implies it's in the DOM as a node. <leaverou> agree with ChrisL rossen: We can easily clarify in box decoration. krit: That's what I said. fantasai: Box is the generated abstract thing, and fragment is the piece of it and it's consistent on that. rossen I think what krit was saying is he's confused about fragment boxes fantasai: Where we were going now, fragments are the fragmented pieces of the box. rossen: That wasn't my intention. The way we implement is the opposite. rossen: There could have been miscommunication, but I've always thought of them as boxes. * sgalineau thought fragments were box fragments i.e. elements generates boxes which can then be fragmented. <fantasai> sgalineau, that's exactly right. <SimonSapin> sgalineau, that's box-decoration-break. <leaverou> sgalineau: Isn't that what box-decoration-break is about? * sgalineau leaverou, simonsapin: well, that sounds like fragment decoration :) krit: There's a difference in implementation. Webkit is one box. krit: IE and Firefox do different boxes. rossen: That's because we actually implemented fragments. fantasai: Firefox has layout objects called frames which are linked into a chain to represent a box. Each individual frame is a box fragment. krit: So in this case you're saying the fragment is right? <sgalineau> fantasai: So they're box fragments. But the terminology does not answer whether border/padding/margins get duplicated on fragments or not. glazou: We need to move one. Can we continue on the mailing list? rossen: Yes. glazou: I think that's better. glazou: We see the problem and we should have margins etc. on the fragment, but how to say it in the spec is undefined. Shapes LC --------- <glazou> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2014JanMar/0014.html <astearns> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-shapes/issues-lc-20131203.html <ChrisL> Pointer to disposition of comments? <astearns> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-shapes/#20131203 astearns: We're at the end of the comment period. astearns: I've gone through all of them and created a disposition. astearns: I got comments from digipub and posted them to www-style. astearns: There was nothing formal from SVG, but I got feedback from Tavmjong and krit. astearns: There were some explanations and clarifications. ??: SVG was also Tavmjong and he said we didn't have shape from before. astearns: He said that before LC so I didn't take it as a LC comment. ChrisL: Did he agree? astearns: I gave him my rational, but I don't remember what he said in reply. astearns: There's some substantial changes. I added serialization and I changed outside from auto-none and I assume that we will need a second LC. astearns: I want to wait until serialization of background is decided. astearns: Background position has changed and I had to adapt. astearns: I wanted to make sure that they're serializing in the same way. ChrisL: I want to make sure Tavmjong's comment is addressed. ChrisL: Inkscape did an in good faith implementation of something we did and then we backed away from it. ChrisL: They need to be able to put text in shapes and they're trying to do it with what CSS is doing. ChrisL: They need to have something they can use. ChrisL: Even though the issue was raised before LC, I'd encourage you to ensure he's okay with this. astearns: I'll get back to him on that issue. astearns: My position from last time is, just because shape inside isn't in level 1 doesn't mean we can't go ahead with implementation if it's going to be a level 2 feature. astearns: If it's a level 2 feature, they can do it. We also have it in webkit and blink and it's just postponed on the implementation side. glazou: I have a question on issue 6 glazou: Our response asked whether this was OK with i18n. astearns: We didn't get an answer. astearns: We should get a positive response, but we do need it. ChrisL: One useful way forward is to e-mail them and say we need to know if you have comments or if you need more time. astearns: I will do that today. astearns: That's all I had. I just wanted to update the group. CSS Syntax CR ------------- <SimonSapin> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Jan/0060.html <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Jan/0060.html SimonSapin: I did not receive any comments since we discussed. SimonSapin: I happen to have found something online that I tried to address with mostly editorial clarification. SimonSapin: There's no normative changes for implementors. SimonSapin: This is without comments from I18N WG. SimonSapin: So I don't know if I should wait for them or what's the next step. glazou: The LC period ended three weeks ago so we're beyond the limit for comments. fantasai: Internationalization did tell me they might be late. SimonSapin: They didn't tell me. glazou: It's becoming urgent, fantasai: I would ping Richard Ishida and ask him if he has comments or needs more time. SimonSapin: I did include internationalization in the e-mail yesterday. Should I ask Richard specifically? fantasai: I would do that and give him time to respond. Their cycles are slower. fantasai: You should get response this week. fantasai: I'm happy to say we can resolve for CR as long as they're happy, but I'd like them to say they're okay. SimonSapin: Okay. SimonSapin: I'm happy to reach out. <Bert> (Richard is on vacation this week.) glazou: I'm in principal okay with that. One point, setting a deadline and never ever meeting it is pointless. glazou: Four weeks beyond the deadline is a lot. glazou: I'm not saying anyone in particular is guilty, but we have a process. We can extend it when people are going to take more time. glazou: And we can be firmer on the limits, or there's no point in a review period. <ChrisL> they should ask for an extension. And it's asking: we can say no. fantasai: He did say he's busy and would be taking several weeks off. fantasai: Also, this isn't urgent to put in CR. No one is waiting for it. glazou: I agree. Remember, I said in principal. SimonSapin: He told you, but he should have told the WG. fantasai: He should have. glazou: SimonSapin, when you contact them, I want you to be firm with them on time. glazou: I want to be sure that SimonSapin is okay with this plan to ask for comments and get an extension. glazou: If you're not ok we'll decide now. SimonSapin: I'm fine with waiting. glazou: Please ping Richard ASAP. glazou: What I see is only editorial changes, so it's easy to move to CR if the WG agrees. glazou: Shall we defer to next week? SimonSapin: Well, we already resolved. glazou: We're waiting for comments. fantasai: We have that if internationalization agrees we can resolve. <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Dec/0403.html glazou: Be we don't have a resolution on these comments. SimonSapin: So we'll talk next week. glazou: That is better. glazou: If Richard answers no comments then we're fine and we can move on. SimonSapin: What is the next step for CR? glazou: Bert will issue transition request and we'll have a call with a director. ChrisL: Did you see the link I posted with the specs for CR? [Link from before meeting: http://services.w3.org/xslt?xmlfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions.html&xslfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions.xsl] SimonSapin: My question was more what do I need to do? ChrisL: As long as your disposition of comments is in order, you don't need anything else. glazou: So you're all set. Fragmentation ------------- fantasai: I wanted to, before we untangle box fragments which would require significant changes, I was wondering about publishing an updated WD. fantasai: if people think that's a good idea. astearns: You asked me to review and I posted stuff on the 6th of December. fantasai: I'm happy to go through those. fantasai: I'll try this week and ask for a WD next week. fantasai: I'm also holding up boxes and borders because I wanted to publish both together. astearns: On backgrounds and borders I want serialization defined before we publish. fantasai: Is it in OM? It's not in backgrounds and borders level 3. astearns: You and TabAtkins were talking and said you need to make sure serialization is correct. fantasai: It's somewhat defined but may be confusing. glazou: Any other items? * leaverou side comment: Generated content on issues prevents people from searching in their browser for "Issue" to find all issues in a document. <ChrisL> +1 to the generated content should be actual content please. <SimonSapin> leaverou +1 <SimonSapin> leaverou, Bikeshed���s issue index helps, though * TabAtkins leaverou That's why I added the Issues Index. ^_^ <leaverou> SimonSapin: ah, good point, I forgot about that * TabAtkins But also, I did consider having Bikeshed generate the words directly. glazou: I guess this is a shorter call 9-Part Sliced Images -------------------- krit: I wanted to ask about sliced-image() function. If we want live images for CSS image, krit: Where we have border images and if we can have something like that for CSS images. krit: I can link the proposal. <krit> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Jan/0000.html krit: The intention of the report is that we remove the box properties that do for masking the same as border image. krit: If we use border image to avoid another property. krit: I want to ask the group if it makes sense to have a sliced image and if I should move forward. fantasai: A sliced image is fine, but anything within the image would be tricky. ChrisL: You'd have to do an outset. fantasai: I'm not convinced. Maybe 9-slice images would be useful for other things, but not for border and masking. fantasai: Because of those parameters and being able to tie it to the border width. smfr: This would move the complicated slicing numbers into image which would simplify border image. fantasai: I'm not sure how you mean. smfr: If this is like masking and border image, I don't think that's tied to the 9-piece-ness of the image. smfr: Are they tied to slice width? fantasai: It's tied to how we define the outside of the box. fantasai: You'd have one big image that you stretch. smfr: So the outsets are independent of the 9-sliced-ness of the image? smfr: I think this would be useful. fantasai: What else would you use it for? smfr: The buttons. Some people change button with hover. fantasai: Wouldn't you use border image for that? smfr: I think masking is a concrete use-case. krit: For border image I don't think it's a problem, though this may not make it easier, it's another way to do it. fantasai: One reason we split border image is people wanted to take small pieces out. fantasai: This made it easier to change one piece. smfr: That's fine. fantasai: That doesn't apply to masking, but you wouldn't want to change on hover. tantek: I think the background use case is simpler. tantek: That way you don't have to use border height to alter. That's not a big advantage, but simpler to achieve the end result. fantasai: You'd still need the same properties. tantek: It's less work slightly on the metrics pieces, which is the harder piece to get right. glazou: So, krit, anything else on this? krit: My intention was to have mask box. krit: I'd like to emphasize that even with proposals I'd still like to have mask box. fantasai: I think it makes sense. krit: So smfr, should we proceed with this image property to replace mask box? smfr: I think it would be useful to solicit use-cases to see if it would be useful. krit: That's independent of mask image. krit: So do we want mask box or proceed with replacing it with mask image? smfr: I don't know if I can make that call now. krit: I'm fine with waiting, but how long? smfr: If we do this, it would be images 4, right? fantasai: We have a F2F coming up. This could be on the agenda to wrap this up. smfr: That's reasonable. krit: Absolutely. glazou: Anything else? June F2F -------- SteveZ: How about June dates? glazou: I was away for last 10 days and couldn't ping Samsung main office. glazou: I'll do that now and report ASAP. <TabAtkins> Huge +1 for Korea meeting. SteveZ: You're aware that AC meeting is June 8-10? glazou: Yes. Plan is to have it in Seoul, not Samsung HQ because we'd have network issues. glazou: I'll report as soon as I can. glazou: I guess that's all for today glazou: Talk to you next week! Bye!
Received on Saturday, 11 January 2014 00:26:45 UTC