[CSSWG] Minutes Paris F2F 2015-08-25 Part I: CSS Cascade, CSS Fragmentation, CSS Animations, CSS Text, TPAC Japanese Industry Meet-up, Number of F2F Meetings Per Year [css-cascade] [css-break] [css-animations] [css-text]

Agenda and Introductions

  - This discussion to set the agenda held no technical details.

CSS Cascade

  - RESOLVED: Publish a new WD for CSS Cascade
  - Pending any comments, the authors will ask for CR in four weeks.

CSS Fragmentation

  - RESOLVED: Drop 'any' and 'always' from level 3 fragmentation
  - RESOLVED: Drop break-before and -after from multi-col and
              reference fragmentation definitions and republish as CR
  - Once the above resolution is addressed and feedback on a
      remaining issue is received, the authors will ask the group
      for CR.

CSS Animations

  - dbaron will review the proposal on keyframe interaction

CSS Text

  - Control Character Status Update: the plan is still to have
    the change implemented by TPAC, but status of fixes is unknown.

TPAC Japanese Industry Meet-up

  - Lots of members of the group were interested in attending a
      meet-up with individuals interested in CSS in Japan around the
      time of TPAC.
  - The options given were have a meeting on the Sunday before TPAC
      (which would allow more time, but would exclude some people
      that already made travel plans), Monday evening after the
      meeting (which would give a limited amount of time, especially
      if it's not catered), and Wednesday (which would keep people
      out of the plenary session).
  - Hiroshi will speak to the community and get back to the group
      with their preference.

Number of F2F Meetings Per Year

  - TabAtkins raised the possibility of moving the group to having
      two F2F meetings a year plus TPAC.
  - The thought was we should wait until TPAC to make that decision.


  Rachel Andrew (observer)
  Rossen Atanassov (Microsoft)
  Tab Atkins (Google)
  David Baron (Mozilla)
  Brian Birtles (Mozila)
  Bert Bos (W3C)
  Tantek Çelik (Mozilla)
  Dave Cramer (Hachette)
  Elika Etemad (Invited Expert)
  Jihye Hong
  Dael Jackson (Scribe)
  Ian Kilpatrick (Google)
  Chris Lilley (W3C)
  Peter Linss (HP
  Edward O'Connor (Apple)
  Simon Pieters (Opera)
  Matt Rakow (Microsoft)
  Florian Rivoal (Invited Expert)
  Andrey Rybka (Bloomberg)
  Hiroshi Sakakibara
  Simon Sapin (Mozilla)
  Hyojin Song (LG)
  Elliott Sprehn (Google)
  Shane Stephens (Google)
  Alan Stearns (Adobe)
  Lea Verou (Invited Expert)
  Sam Weinig
  Greg Whitworth (Microsoft)
  Johannes Wilm (Antenna House)

  John Daggett (Mozilla)
  Daniel Glazman (Disruptive Innovations)
  Anton Prowse (Invited Expert)

Agenda: https://wiki.csswg.org/planning/paris-2015#agenda
Scribe: dael

Agenda and Introductions

  [This discussion to set the agenda held no technical details.]

CSS Cascade

  plinss: Whose topic?
  TabAtkins: Cascade is ready for CR, but we want to first publish
             it as a last WD for review, just so that anything can
             be sussed out before we go to CR.
  Florian: So you're doing a WD?
  fantasai: Yeah, there's no open issues.
  TabAtkins: We'll do a WD and ask for CR is a bit. Just to make
             sure there's no final objections.
  plinss: Anyone opposed?

  RESOLVED: Publish a new WD for CSS Cascade

  fantasai: Do we want a deadline for comments?
  Florian: 4 weeks?
  fantasai: Sure.
  astearns: Are you asking anyone besides the WG to look?
  TabAtkins: I don't think there's any other WG this is of interest
  fantasai: HTML?
  Florian: This is pretty internal.
  tantek: Do you need 4 weeks?
  fantasai: We have almost no comments. It would be useful to
            collect comments one way or another since we need
            to demonstrate wide review to go to CR.
  plinss: Anything else on cascade?

CSS Fragmentation

  fantasai: We have one open issue. The naming of the any and always
            values for break-before and break-after
  fantasai: It's kind of confusing what either of these things mean.
  SteveZ: The last time we talked on the phone I don't remember what
          tantek's suggestion was, but I liked it. You had a problem
          because you felt it was confusing.
  fantasai: Nearest. It implies that it's distance-wise, not
  SteveZ: I think that issue is deeper than all and any. Nearest
          would still be better. I understand there's confusion, but
          it's less.
  fantasai: So nearest and farthest?

  Florian: I was thinking yesterday. I'm not sure, but
           break-before: shallow and break-before: deep
           for any and all
  TabAtkins: He asked me what I thought it meant and I wasn't paying
             attention and I got it right, so it seems reasonable.

  fantasai: Other thoughts?
  hober: I liked the compound names with force.
  fantasai: force-page and force-column
  fantasai: We don't use force as a prefix for page or column. We
            should have.
  dauwhe: It's widely used.
  tantek: When did we last talk about this on telecon?
  Rossen: A month ago.
  tantek: I remember trying to draw similarity to the page break
  astearns: It was on 29 July.
  <tantek> 2015-07-29 minutes
  <tantek> I think I need to see the previous discussion before that

  fantasai: Do you know if the always values are widely used?
  dauwhe: We tend to use page-break-before always a lot.
  fantasai: Page break property won't change, they're being folded
            in but keeping their own syntax.
  fantasai: This is for break-before and break-after. I don't think
            they're widely used. They're not in browsers.
  fantasai: They'd only be in AH and Prince
  <fantasai> (Not used on the Web)
  dauwhe: I'm looking in Prince right now. They just have column and
          page. They don't have pure break-before and break-after
  <dauwhe> Prince has page-break-before/after: auto | always | avoid
           | left | right
  fantasai: Antenna House I think is just the break-before and
            break-after....well, we can put this on a board
            somewhere and people can think.
  <zcorpan> non-zero usage on the web for page-break-before /

  SteveZ: Basically any solution is better than any and all.
  hober: I like shallow and deep. It's confusing, but a bit more
  dauwhe: It aids in understanding if you have a certain level of
  hober: Can we change those now since they're an improvement and
         leave a note saying if you have better ideas propose them?
  fantasai: So resolve change to shadow and deep unless there's a
            better idea?
  Bert: I can't say I like it.
  SteveZ: Relative to the tree.
  Bert: But I don't like to think about the tree. A page is more
        like a sequence than the tree.
  fantasai: But this is about nested fragment context. If you have
            multicol in a region in a paged media, shallow is just
            the column, deep is the page.
  Bert: How about soon or first-available?

  fantasai: We could also drop these values.
  Rossen: That was a proposed resolution. We've been stuck on this
          for weeks for a name.
  tantek: Who was asking for this level?
  fantasai: We had an always because someone copied it into a CR spec
            (multicol) and then we got an issue of what does it mean.
  Rossen: And to have symmetry with always we added any. You can
          have context that's agnostic.
  tantek: So we can drop both?
  fantasai: Probably. We only have one implementation of always.
            We'd have to re-publish multi-col.
  Rossen: The proposal was to push any to the next level and keep
          always for backwards compat.
  Florian: But there's no backwards compat. I'm not okay with
           punting just one because then you're stuck with the
           naming of half the pair.
  fantasai: So defer always and any to the next level and also
            resolve to re-publish multi-col without the break

  SteveZ: Does anyone else besides bert object to renaming to deep
          and shallow?
  tantek: I don't like them.
  Rossen: I'm not a huge fan.
  dauwhe: I think the deep and shallow on the next level will be
          better with having examples. I think we need drawings.
  tantek: Agreed.
  tantek: So we're dropping break-before and break-after?
  astearns: Just those values.

  tantek: Before re-raising the values someone should produce real
          world use cases.
  <tantek> let's make that the burden for "new information" for
           re-raising those values, you must provide real world use
           cases with diagrams to justify re-introducing values like

  fantasai: astearns pointed out there's one issue in the spec about
            the breaking rules "does it make sense?" and maybe dauwhe
            you can take a look at that?

  plinss: So we're removing those values from fragmentation and
          removing breaks from multi-col and re-publishing it as CR.
  fantasai: Yes, when we publish this as CR.
  plinss: So removing the entire breaks section?
  Florian: Last time I talked to howcome he wanted to do maintenance
           of multi-col.
  Rossen: Yes, but we have a resolution from Tuscon to add me as a
  Florian: And we have me as level 2.
  Florian: So we can ping him and then we can take over if we don't
           hear back.
  Rossen: Before I was able to do the edit, he read the thread and
          made the edit.
  Florian: He made some recently for a resolution we made a while
  fantasai: If he's active then okay.

  RESOLVED: Drop 'any' and 'always' from level 3 fragmentation
  RESOLVED: Drop break-before and -after from multi-col and
            reference fragmentation definitions and republish as CR

  ACTION dauwhe to look at the last issue in fragmentation
  <trackbot> Created ACTION-703

  Rossen: Is issue 13 resolved?
  fantasai: I don't remember, I have to check.
  Rossen: I think you replied on ML.
  fantasai: Then we just need to update DoC.
  fantasai: Once we get dauwhe's feedback and update the DoC we'll
            come back for the resolution to go to CR.

CSS Animations keyframe issue

  fantasai: The issue was just can dbaron look at this.
  dbaron: What is this?
  TabAtkins: Remember some time ago when we were talking on IRC and
             everyone had different ideas of how keyframes should be
             parsed in different situations. I wrote up an
  dbaron: I need to read it.
  TabAtkins: So revisit tomorrow?
  dbaron: I don't know if I'll have time.
  TabAtkins: Mozilla is the only one left for a yes/no call.
  dbaron: Do you have a URL?
  TabAtkins: I'll send.
  <TabAtkins> dbaron:

Control Character Status Update

  <gregwhitworth> http://logs.csswg.org/irc.w3.org/css/2015-02-08/#e520447
  gregwhitworth: We all resolved, basically every UA agreed to
                 implement control characters blocks C0 and C1 as
                 hexboxes if they have them.
  gregwhitworth: We've done it for C0. For almost every browser they
                 throw away C1 blocks. We were looking to see if
                 other browsers were doing this. I wanted to get an
  TabAtkins: We haven't done the work but we're fine with going
  <fantasai> TabAtkins, do you guys have someone assigned to it?
  fantasai: We wanted to release this all together.
  dbaron: Jonathan Kew would know for us, maybe Jet.

  gregwhitworth: I'll follow up with the list on the C1 issue. Maybe
                 put in the spec that if you have a new browser, you
                 should throw out C1.
  hober: I don't remember, but dino will be here soon.
  gregwhitworth: So TPAC it should be in everyone's code and do the
                 PR to announce it.
  Bert: Do you find many control characters in the style sheets?
  gregwhitworth: We haven't shipped it out with the flag so we don't
                 know. There are some sites, I don't know how
                 they're getting it in there. That's why we need to
                 do the PR hit, actually for the customers, not the
  plinss: So do we need to come back?
  gregwhitworth: I'll talk to dino.

Japanese Industry Meet-up

  Florian: We were talking about this yesterday. Since the next F2F
           is in Japan and there's lots of companies in Japan
           interested in this group, especially writing modes, so it
           seemed to make sense to have a meet-up next to the WG
           meeting. Maybe on Sunday before TPAC have a room
  Florian: We can have the members of the WG that are interested
           meet with Japanese business people. Maybe have it mixed
  hiroshi: I talked to the site manager today and he can set up a
           room for that. Please let me know.

  fantasai: Does everyone think this is a good idea?
  dauwhe: I like the idea, but I'm concerned a lot of us have made
          travel plans. I'm arriving Sunday.
  astearns: Would an evening work? Instead of during the day of
            Sunday, meet after the TPAC sessions?
  hiroshi: Yes.
  SteveZ: Monday night doesn't have an event.
  fantasai: Is that enough time?
  fantasai: It'll be 4 hours at most.
  Florian: I'm not sure having it during the meeting is as good.
  Florian: Personally I'm good with any random time.

  fantasai: Who is interested in attending? Type it in IRC
  <astearns> interested
  <hober> +0.5
  <fantasai> interested
  <dauwhe> interested
  <Rossen> interested
  <Bert> interested
  <birtles> interested
  <Florian> interested
  <plinss> +1
  <johanneswilm> possibly
  <skk_> interested
  <shane> interested
  <SteveZ> I would be interested in attending a Japanese Meet-up
  <hyojin> interested
  <jet> interested
  <iank> interested
  <SimonSapin> interested

  fantasai: Of those interested who has travel plans?
  [bert and dauwhe]
  fantasai: Can you make a Sunday?
  Bert: I arrive Sunday early afternoon.

  fantasai: If we did it in the evening after a TPAC meeting day
            (which ends ~6pm) and don't include dinner, we can
            do 2 hours. If we include dinner we can have ~4 hours.
            Is that enough time?

  Florian: Are we doing TPAC with the gigantic lunch break?
  dauwhe: Didn't we ignore that?
  astearns: We did.
  Florian: We were offered the options to meet from 9-11 and resume
           at 3 with joint sessions.
  hober: We only meet for 2 days.

  fantasai: So we can do 2 hours, 4 hours if we get catered, and
            that can be Monday evening. We can do a large chunk of
            Wednesday and miss the plenary. Or we do Sunday and have
            a schedule conflict with Bert and dauwhe. I suspect 2
            hours is too short.
  Florian: And if we do 4 hours we can do the thing were you mingle
           with food. So 3 hours of meeting and 1 hour of food.
  dbaron: How many people would travel to Sapporo for the 2 hour
  hiroshi: 20 or 30 people.
  fantasai: I think 4 hours is too short if there's lots of questions.

  Rossen: How much time would you prefer to have?
  hiroshi: I have no idea.
  Rossen: Is 2 hours enough?
  fantasai: We can do 2 hours, 4 hours, or 6-8 hours
  hiroshi: I want to talk with some guys in Japan to get answers.
  Florian: I think we shouldn't do it Sunday because the conflicts.
  fantasai: It'll depend on what they need.
  fantasai: We have several options and we need to know from the
            community what they want.
  hiroshi: I understand the options and I can talked to the
           community and will have answers tomorrow.

  hober: Before we move on, dino will be here half the day tomorrow.
  plinss: So maybe now is break time?
  fantasai: Any other random topics?

Number of F2F Meetings Per Year

  TabAtkins: A few years ago we switched to 3 meetings/year plus
             TPAC. I think the WG is moving a bit slower and I was
             suggesting 2016 switches to 2 meetings plus TPAC.
  fantasai: I think we might want to wait until TPAC to make that
            decision because I've been increasing my hours recently.
  TabAtkins: Okay, put it in everyone's head to think about it.

  tantek: Is the based on metrics or a feeling?
  TabAtkins: We're not doing as much work as we were a year or two
  dbaron: We could schedule for May/June and decide if we're
          scheduling for September later.
  tantek: You could also look at things we can measure.
  fantasai: And do we consume all the agenda or are we filling time.
  Florian: We've had several with light agendas, but not this one.
  Rossen: NY had overflow.
  hober: It seems like we've expanded to a 5 day F2F including
  TabAtkins: I think we can expand to fill any space.
  fantasai: No, there have been meetings were we've been scrounging
            for topics.
  dauwhe: It could also be an issue of do we need three days, could
          do three meetings of three days or four meetings of two
  fantasai: I think we should wait until later to figure out.
  SteveZ: It may be a good exercise for Thursday afternoon to help
          ID things that need work.


Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 21:21:44 UTC