- From: Dael Jackson <daelcss@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 08:38:54 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
CSS UI 3
--------
- RESOLVED: ping the other WGs; unless there's problematic
feedback, go to CR for CSS UI Level 3 in 4 weeks
- RESOLVED: Drop box-sizing:padding-box for lack of use cases.
Publication of Specs that Use Their Own Properties as Examples
--------------------------------------------------------------
- RESOLVED: The CSSWG produces drafts that often use new CSS
features for live examples, and thus such CSS
Validator errors MUST NOT block publishing of such
drafts.
===== FULL MINUTES BELOW =======
Present:
Rossen Atanassov
Tab Atkins
David Baron
Bert Bos
Bo Campbell
Tantek Çelik
John Daggett (phone)
Elika Etemad
Simon Fraser
Daniel Glazman
Ian Kilpatrick
Chris Lilley
Peter Linss
Cameron McCormack (phone)
Florian Rivoal
Andrey Rybka
Simon Sapin
Doug Schepers
Shane Stephens
Lea Verou
Jet Villegas
Johannes Wilm
Greg Whitworth
Steve Zilles
Regrets:
John Daggett
Dael Jackson
Simon Pieters
Anton Prowse
Hyojin Song
Alan Stearns
Agenda: https://wiki.csswg.org/planning/new-york-2015#agenda
Scribe: TabAtkins
CSS UI 3
--------
Florian: All recorded issues are closed.
Florian: By my own review, there shouldn't be any new issue raised.
Florian: We have made a publication request a while ago, it just
came in.
Florian: So this is the stable draft we'd like to take to CR.
Tantek and I will send mail to relevant WGs, and we
should look at is as a group too.
Florian: I don't have any specific points for this spec, unless
people would like a tour.
tantek: The bug fixes and issues have been relatively minor, with
the exception of box-sizing which got a lot of spec text.
It's been reviewed, but if you focus on one piece, take a
look at it.
tantek: I think that we're in good shape to go to CR quickly.
tantek: So maybe take a week or two to take a look at this, and
see if there's anything to raise before we go to CR.
fantasai: I'd leave at least 4-6 weeks after you post the
announcement before you try to advance.
[process wanking]
[intensifies]
szilles: You're assuming people are tracking your draft closely.
This isn't necessarily true, especially for peripheral
groups.
szilles: Ostensibly the goal was to start negotiating with other
groups early.
szilles: They don't want to do multiple reviews, but we don't want
to wait until CR, as it's too late to do changes.
tantek: We've gone to CR before.
szilles: But it needs wide review and interest from a11y, as it's
UI.
tantek: Right. Most of the draft has already been through CR and
thus wide review. Only real new thing is the new box-
sizing text.
glazou: Point: Leonie Watson joined the group to do a11y review,
she should be pinged.
florian: I'd just be in favor of four week delay.
glazou: Yeah, and I don't think she could do a UI review in two
weeks.
tantek: Okay.
proposed resolution: ping the other WGs; unless there's
problematic feedback, go to CR for UI 3 in 4 weeks
tantek: Ping www-style, subset of working groups, and Leonie
specifically.
Action tantek to ping groups and Leonie about UI 3 review
Created ACTION-689
RESOLVED: ping the other WGs; unless there's problematic feedback,
go to CR for UI 3 in 4 weeks
SimonSapin: I think box-sizing:padding-box is only in Firefox.
tantek: That's why it's at risk.
TabAtkins: Afaik, we have no interest in it.
Rossen: Same.
SimonSapin: We have a patch for it in Servo, and was wondering if
it should be behind a flag.
tantek: We can keep it in CR until we decide to drop it; that's
what at-risk is for.
fantasai: We shouldn't be encouraging people to implement
something that we don't have use-cases for.
SimonSapin: That's the issue in Servo, yeah, someone saw it wasn't
implemented and wrote a patch.
dbaron: Not sure why we implemented it in Gecko.
plinss: For completeness. box-sizing was for border-box.
TabAtkins: So let's just drop it.
10 for / 0 against / 7 abstain
RESOLVED: Drop box-sizing:padding-box
SimonSapin: So should we drop it from our implementation?
dbaron: Maybe, it's used in a few internal places. We can just
review and see what they mean, and if they can be replaced.
dbaron: I suspect we can remove it.
dbaron: NetError page and PrivateBrowsing page, and SearchBar CSS.
tantek: Drop at CR?
fantasai: You're always use-cases, use-cases, use-cases, but here
you can't even come up with a theoretical use-case!
dbaron: There's two sets of uses. One is on an element with
padding but no border, so we can just switch to border-box.
dbaron: The other one might be border but no padding, so it can
switch to content-box.
tantek: I'm okay with dropping it from the draft before we publish
in four weeks.
Publication of Specs that Use Their Properties as Examples
----------------------------------------------------------
fantasai: While on the topic of publishing, Tantek has run into
the problem of needing numerous people's approvals to
get UI published, because it uses UI properties that
make the validator unhappy.
fantasai: So we should get a resolution that specs can use their
own properties in examples.
Bert: We can only use properties from CR drafts.
tantek: I mean just in examples.
fantasai: This is in live examples: here's some code, here's what
it should look like, here's what it looks like in your
browser.
Florian: UI has a lot of images of the desired rendering.
tantek: As an ex-implementor, this was very useful to have them
all around.
tantek: We've been doing this for years. I think it's accepted and
useful.
Bert: Can we put the examples somewhere else, not on /TR?
TabAtkins: No, the point is inline.
tantek: Having them right inline is good for implementors and
users.
plinss: What does it hurt?
tantek: So there's a proposal I've put up; if we want to scope it
to live examples rather than spec text, we can go with
either.
<Florian> PROPOSAL: “The CSSWG produces drafts that often use new
CSS features for live examples, and thus such CSS
Validator errors MUST NOT block publishing of such
drafts.” The hope is that by resolving on this publicly
as a group, we can reduce some of the human-to-human
bottleneck in getting drafts published using the current
process, and provide a strong case for Echidna dropping
or modifying its automatic requirement for CSS
validation.
plinss: As long as it's forward-compatible, and we don't require
it for the correct rendering of the spec.
Bert: Maybe I could ask for specially-marked examples that aren't
validated...
glazou: Let's not ask. We should resolve as a WG.
tantek: Resolutions from WGs are great input into the process.
fantasai: From what I understand, the webmaster has said to PLH
"Hey, this isn't validating. What do?" and PLH says "Is
the WG okay with publishing it? If so, go ahead."
Bert: PLH isn't in charge of publishing.
<plh> I am
<glazou> thanks plh
<plh> at least, the webmaster comes to me with those questions
tantek: This currently adds 48 hours to every publication.
glazou: I guess the question is resolved, thanks Philippe.
tantek: And this resolution gives PLH better power to say "go
ahead" immediately.
glazou: How many messages did we exchange about UI publication? 7?
8? It's completely broken.
Bert: If you can get this into the automated process, then it'll
take 5 minutes to publish.
tantek: Right. And this is step 1. I'll be pushing this further.
13 in favor / 1 object / 2 abstain
glazou: Proposal is accepted.
RESOLVED: The CSSWG produces drafts that often use new CSS
features for live examples, and thus such CSS Validator
errors MUST NOT block publishing of such drafts.
SimonSapin: When we have things marked at-risk, they're marked in
the status section, but not in the feature section.
Pretty sure person who implemented box-sizing in Servo
didn't see that padding-box was at-risk.
SimonSapin: Can we add a note down by where things are defined?
TabAtkins: I can probably make this easier in bikeshed, so you can
mark a definition as at-risk and it'll notate the
status section for you automatically.
SimonSapin: I’ll file an issue on Bikeshed
Received on Saturday, 20 June 2015 12:39:22 UTC