W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2015

[CSSWG] Minutes New York F2F 2015-05-20 Part I: CSS UI 3, Publication of Specs that Use Their Own Properties as Examples

From: Dael Jackson <daelcss@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 08:38:54 -0400
Message-ID: <CADhPm3tCN8xY7Hus0y1oXeh7ACh++acwc09BYYpfirU5_hP10g@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:31 UTC