W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2016

[CSSWG] Minutes Telecon 2016-01-13 [css-round-display] [css-snappoints]

From: Dael Jackson <daelcss@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 19:36:44 -0500
Message-ID: <CADhPm3tSQq_2KaWNkpc4F3vt39uUQmsaks6uEGGHnNm66TYjwQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
Update on accepting alternate snap points proposal

  - MaRakow reported that he has been pushing updates to the spec
      and would be okay with publishing an updated working draft.
      - TabAtkins felt that it was missing too many pieces to publish.
  - TabAtkins proposed that the working group should resolve that
      the spec will go in the direction of the spec that TabAtkins
      and fantasai wrote, however MaRakow wasn't comfortable with
      that until he had finished his full review.
      - The suggestion to resolve was based on a desire to give
          implementers a clear indicator that snap points is going
          in the direction of their proposal and to ensure that any
          changes MaRakow made were documented.
          - MaRakow offered to maintain a DoC or a change list to
              ensure that TabAtkins and fantasai can follow the
      - Instead of the resolution TabAtkins proposed, MaRakow
          offered to put a note at the top of the spec making it
          clear that it will be changing in the direction of the
          TabAtkins and fantasai document.
  - TabAtkins suggested that other developers with experience in
      snap points help MaRakow do review to try and get the spec to
      publication by Sydney.
      - Rossen also suggested that MaRakow, fantasai, and TabAtkins
           get on a call to work through the changes.
  - RESOLVED: Add to the top of snap points "This spec is currently
              undergoing major changes in line with the resolutions
              During this process it is not safe to assume that the
              current form will be representative of what it will
              look like in the future. After the work in process is
              completed, it will closely resemble this proposal (
              link to Tab/Elika's proposal)"

Using polar positioning as a part of absolute positioning

  - Jihye and BradK reviewed their conversation about if it's
      possible to merge the proposed center property and the
      polar-origin property.
  - fantasai suggested that it may be possible to do everything in
      the center property using the already existing alignment
      - BradK will send fantasai a list of emails to review to catch
          up on the conversation so that she can reply with more
          details on her proposed solution after reviewing the use


Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2016Jan/0070.html

  Rossen Atanassov
  Tab Atkins
  Bert Bos
  Tantek Çelik
  Dave Cramer
  Alex Critchfield
  Greg Davis
  Elika Etemad
  Tony Graham
  Jihye Hong
  Dael Jackson
  Myles Maxfield
  Thierry Michel
  Michael Miller
  Anton Prowse
  Matt Rakow
  Alan Stearns (IRC Only)
  Greg Whitworth
  Steve Zilles

  David Baron
  Daniel Glazman
  Chris Lilley
  Peter Linss
  Edward O'Connor
  Florian Rivoal
  Lea Verou
  Johannes Wilm

Scribe: dael

  Rossen: Let's get going.
  Rossen: Hello again. Do we have any additional topics to discuss?
  Rossen: Okay. We'll have a short call today likely.
  Rossen: The first topic is on round display.
  jihye: I think bradk isn't here yet.
  Rossen: I thought he was on IRC.
  Rossen: bradk are you on the call?

Update on accepting alternate snap points proposal

  Rossen: MaRakow was actioned to update by today.
  MaRakow: I pushed updates to the spec on Monday and Tuesday which
           includes the core functionality from TabAtkins and
           fantasai which is snap padding, snap area, and snap
           alignment and the other sections, such as examples are
  MaRakow: There's more to merge, but it's a spec that holds
           together for functionality.
  MaRakow: It includes the core items.
  MaRakow: I'm happy to push an updated WD. Or I can keep working on
           the merge and do a WD later, whichever is preferred.

  TabAtkins: It's missing all the details of 1d vs 2d snap positions.
  MaRakow: I'll be working on those next.
  TabAtkins: It's not usable until we have those.
  MaRakow: If you prefer me to get a fuller thing done we can. As is
           it's closer and is internally consistent, but if you'd
           rather wait we can.
  TabAtkins: I don't want to publish a new WD until it's done, but
             I'd be happy to have the WG 'yes this is the direction
             we're taking' resolution.

  Rossen: So MaRakow, when would you be able to get those details
          into the spec?
  MaRakow: I'll be working on it immediately. I can do an update
           next week.
  TabAtkins: I'm fine with you taking the time you need. My goal is
             to get it communicated to the working group, Microsoft,
             that yes this is the thing and accept this is the
             direction we're going.
  Rossen: When you say this is the thing, you mean the merged spec?
  TabAtkins: Yeah. The point was our entire process was hinged on
             Microsoft wanting extra time. As long as you're okay
             now, we can resolve that this is how we're doing this.
  Rossen: Sounds reasonable. MaRakow?
  MaRakow: We're on the track for a merged spec. Take a look at the
           details in the github for where i did deviations or merge
           conflicts. But we're going in the direction.

  TabAtkins: So can we resolve as a Working Group?
  Rossen: What would the resolution be?
  TabAtkins: We are accepting the model from fantasai and I. The
             edits are in process to integrate the proposal, but the
             model we proposed is what the WG is adopting.
  MaRakow: Snapping from element boxes, not coordinate systems?
  TabAtkins: You're updating spec to match our proposal.
  MaRakow: We'll need to see what the merge looks like, but we're
           using element boxes, not coordinate systems.
  TabAtkins: I'm not asking for exact wording. The proposal as it
             stands is what we're wanting to go with.
  TabAtkins: I'm not trying to nail you into weird details.
  fantasai: And if there's a change it's something specific that
            needs fixing.
  MaRakow: I'm not sure I'm ready...
  [everyone talks over each other]

  MaRakow: I'm not sure I'm ready for that kind of commitment unless
           it's more specific.
  TabAtkins: We're accepting the proposal fantasai and I wrote with
             any changes being bug fixes from the WG not arbitrary
  MaRakow: Some of the items we talked about that were internal
           confusions need to be resolved. They'll be open issues. I
           don't think I'll drop without a note, but there's some
           items where I need to point out where there's a desire to
           control, but problems with the proposal.
  TabAtkins: The point is the proposal is what we're doing, not a
             modification no one heard of.

  TabAtkins: You've had 2 1/2 months to review, are you willing to
             say Microsoft will implement the proposal with any
             changes the WG will make in the future.
  MaRakow: No, it overrides my ability to do a review.
  TabAtkins: It doesn't. That's your responsibility as an editor.
             We're responsible to the oversight of the WG, but
             everyone else approved the proposal at the F2F.
  MaRakow: I don't think we had carte blanche approval.
  TabAtkins: Correct.
  MaRakow: We need greater discussion for a complete acceptance.

  fantasai: One of the problems with you going and merging and not
            telling us what you changed is we don't know what you
            changed and have to go word by word and see if we agree.
            We want it to be your responsibility that as you find
            things that need changing you bring it to the WG. So we
            accept the proposal, anything you don't like becomes and
            issue, and we fix it.
  fantasai: If you're just going to merge everything in, TabAtkins
            and I have to go word by word to find the differences
            and decide if they're significant and bring them to the
            group. We don't want to spend two days doing it. Since
            you're doing it you should point out the differences.
  MaRakow: That's the situation you put me in when you introduced
           the spec without consulting.
  fantasai: We tried.
  MaRakow: I was interested in talking to you.
  TabAtkins: We synthesized the last two years of feedback that was
  MaRakow: You didn't talk to me about the proposal or give me
           change by change. Yes it's a problem. If the issue is
           you're not sure what's changed, I'm happy to give you a
           change list. I can put in open issues with anything I've
           changed. I'm not trying to make it hard for you to review.
  fantasai: You're marking what's different? We had in our proposal
            the things that were different at first, we talked about
            that, and we built it out with feedback and made an
            entire DoC. You can't tell me we didn't.
  MaRakow: But you're saying I didn't do a similar thing.
  fantasai: You did that.
  fantasai: We're talking about the changes you're making now.
  MaRakow: I'm happy to pull together the change list.
  fantasai: If you have that, we're fine.

  TabAtkins: I'm not willing to come away from the telecon without a
             reasonable variation of we're accepting the proposal
             from fantasai and TabAtkins or we are with these changes.
  fantasai: We have it.
  TabAtkins: No we don't.
  fantasai: We have the technical resolutions. The one open item is
            the name of the scroll-snap-type property. I can dig up
            the resolutions from December.
  <fantasai> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Dec/0048.html
  <fantasai> resolutions ^
  TabAtkins: That resolution...the strength of it isn't...other
             browsers don't think it's strong. I want a clear,
             unambiguous resolution that this is the approach with
             bug fixes.

  MaRakow: I think in Paris the WG advised you to work with me to
           advance something like your proposal. In Japan we didn't
           resolve to a new syntax, but a lot of changes I have
           incorporated. Since then we've dropped properties from
           the old spec and there's the open issue on snap-axis.
           We'll continue with the recommendation in Paris as
           merging and moving to our spec.

  fantasai: TabAtkins, we have the technical resolutions. Mozilla is
            moving forward.
  TabAtkins: I'm asking for an affirmation from the group that this
             is what we're doing. That thing I'm asking for isn't
             communicated to other browsers as I understand it.
  MaRakow: If we want to formalize what we said in Paris that the WG
           wants that direction and wants us to work together on
           merging, I think we can do that. The ED is nothing like
           the old proposal. Maybe add a note saying this is a work
           in progress to look more like your proposal and link to
           it we can. I'm willing to say that's the direction, but
           I'm not willing to approve it all.
  TabAtkins: You're missing axis and short hands.
  MaRakow: And a lot of text with descriptions on how it works.
  TabAtkins: Which you've had for 2 months. You keep asking for more
             time. I need to know I can tell my people to ship this
             in an experimental build, the code as we understand it,
             and it won't change drastically.
  MaRakow: How are you held back?
  TabAtkins: We don't want to throw something out there that we're
             going to throw away. Firefox and Safari are in the same
             place but they wont' even start to work.
  TabAtkins: There is currently code that Safari and Firefox have
             written that they're not currently planning on changing
             because the spec is in flux because you've taken the
             time to review the stuff they're happy with.

  fantasai: MaRakow was talking about putting up here's where we're
            at and here's where we're moving. TabAtkins if we ask
            him to do that and have the change list...MaRakow, will
            you be able to finish by Sydney?
  MaRakow: Most likely not...I also won't be at Sydney
  MaRakow: I don't think I'll be able to.
  TabAtkins: I understand spec editing isn't your primary job. We
             need more responsiveness. Can we add a co-editor?
  MaRakow: That will help me review faster or get your changes
           checked in faster?
  TabAtkins: The time you can put in as an editor isn't enough so
             I'd like more help.
  MaRakow: The problem is review.
  TabAtkins: Which you're time constrained on, I understand. But I
             don't like you being the sole gate keeper on time since
             you're time constrained.
  MaRakow: The problem isn't time, it's reviewing.
  TabAtkins: So reviewing will take more than 2 weeks of full time
  MaRakow: The process of reviewing isn't something a co-editor can
           help with.
  TabAtkins: One that you trust can. They can split the work with
  MaRakow: I'm reviewing for things that you haven't thought of or
           haven't considered. Unless there's another technical
           expert that has experience in scrolling.
  TabAtkins: We have that. Apple has experience, our implementor
             could help.

  MaRakow: I'd like to hear from Apple and Firefox if there's
           confusion on the status.
  TabAtkins: Dino mentioned the confusion in December.
  Rossen: Let's say that there are two specs competing for the same
          space. There is confusion by that existence. Everyone is
          looking to get rid of confusion as fast as we can. There
          are constraints.
  Rossen: The idea would be a WD approved by Sydney. One way is to
          ask MaRakow to drop everything and focus on this. That's
          his call if he can. Another would be to add a second
          editor or 2 editors who can do this if there's mutual
          acceptance. 3rd way is you guys to get on the phone for 4
          or 5 hours and get down to the review in real time and get
          it done.
  Rossen: One of these options, which do you go for?
  TabAtkins: fantasai and I are working together all month so we're
             available for real time resolution of issues. That's
             acceptable on our part.
  MaRakow: I'm happy to meet. If you guys can bring Majid (sp?) or
           technical help that would be good. If you have an
           experimental implementation that would help because I
           could see what it means.
  TabAtkins: I can try and get Majid and you together.

  TabAtkins: In the mean time, I'm not seeing a blocker from doing a
             political resolution that modulo any fixes that need to
             be made, the proposal as fantasai and I wrote it is
  MaRakow: It sounds like a strange way of wording it.
  TabAtkins: We've done this kind of thing before. Saying we know
             there will be tweaks, but this is the direction. It's
             not uncommon.
  MaRakow: Are there opinions for Apple or Firefox?
  fantasai: Mozilla filed the bugs to fix this referencing the
            resolutions from December. I'm not sure what extent
            someone is working on it.
  myles: During the F2F we had one piece of feedback, but were happy
         to go in that direction. I can't speak as to what we'll ship.
  Rossen: Can we assume you're blocked by the situation?
  myles: You can assume we're not currently working on this.
  Rossen: So you're not blocked if you're not working on it.

  Rossen: So how do we move forward? Everyone wants to get this out
          the door. One correction is TabAtkins keeps saying this is
          a political move which puts me in a tough spot. I can
          affirm there's nothing political here...
  TabAtkins: I'm not saying it's political on your part. I would
             like a political resolution on that part to make it
             clear to everyone in the WG what the direction is.

  fantasai: MaRakow you said you can put a clarifying paragraph,
            right? Can you type something into IRC and we resolve on
  MaRakow: Yeah, let me try something.
  [MaRakow types]
  Rossen: In the meantime I'm going to urge you guys to get together
          on the phone and square the differences. Everyone needs
  <MaRakow> Resolve to add a notification at the top of the spec
            saying "This spec is currently undergoing major changes.
            During this process it is not safe to assume that the
            current form will be representative of what it will look
            like in the future. After the work in process is
            completed, it will more closely resemble this proposal (
            link to Tab/Elika's proposal)"
  MaRakow: Does that look alright?
  Rossen: TabAtkins? fantasai?
  TabAtkins: I'm thinking.
  TabAtkins: Fine with me unless fantasai objects.
  fantasai: I would append...
  <fantasai> "modulo any technical changes resolved by the CSSWG"
  fantasai: Does that seem reasonable?
  TabAtkins: Yes. This makes me happy.
  MaRakow: I think the issue I have with that is there is content in
           the spec that is clearly wrong and will need changes. By
           technical changes to you mean things like the must prose?
  fantasai: I mean like changes in expected behavior; parsing to,
            scrolling to, whatever.
  MaRakow: I'm concerned about things like there's still content in
           that spec around axis that are representing open issues
  fantasai: I think...let me go see what those issues were.
  MaRakow: I think there's still example about things like snap
           grouping. I don't want to come to the WG to every little
  TabAtkins: We're not trying to lock you into anything weird. We're
             just preventing capricious changes to a stable WD and
             any technical changes about the trivial are approved by
             the WG.
  MaRakow: I'm not comfortable with 'stable WD'.
  TabAtkins: You've had so long to review.
  MaRakow: I don't want an author shipping the ED without a holdback
           or your proposal with a holdback.
  fantasai: Neither are because we're not CR.
  MaRakow: I don't want something to say please go implement this.
  fantasai: When we have a WD that's getting close to CR but isn't
            there quite yet but will move soon, we generally lock
            down technical changes. Like the last 3 months of Flex
            went through the WG.

  Rossen: Let's try to move forward. Can we resolve on MaRakow's
          wording without fantasai addition?
  Rossen: We'll resolve on that and then on the addendum.
  TabAtkins: I don't want it without the addendum.
  TabAtkins: This isn't a strange request. This should be moving to
             stability. We're looking for recognition of that.
  MaRakow: I want to move to stability, I think that text implies
           that you spec is stable and I don't think it is. There's
           too many internal instabilities. As we move forward we
           can add phrases about that. I'll send you the change
           list, work with you on conference calls. There shouldn't
           be surprises.
  TabAtkins: Then lets agree in wording that there's no surprises.
  MaRakow: I'm not trying to sneak any changes past you.
  TabAtkins: And I'm not fearing you will. We just want to know
             changes as they change.
  MaRakow: I'll send updates to the ML with the change list.
  TabAtkins: So it shouldn't be weird to agree to. The wording is
             non committal.
  MaRakow: Requiring WG approval of changes implies that your spec
           is stable.
  TabAtkins: We can put 'significant' in there.

  <fantasai> "in line with the resolutions in
  <fantasai> ?
  <fantasai> (append)

  fantasai: We can append in line with the resolutions in the e-mail.
  Rossen: So sounds like MaRakow isn't comfortable with the addendum
          and you're not without.
  TabAtkins: As it stands MaRakow position is the holding pattern
             we're in. We're going something in this direction but
             don't know exactly what.
  MaRakow: The recent changes show that. I've offered to add
           something to the top and send changes to the mailing list.
           It sounds like people should think your spec is the final
  TabAtkins: Our shipping choice is based on stability of the spec.

  Rossen: We're eating too much time.
  fantasai: I have a proposal, give me a minute.
  MaRakow: What seems odd is you're asking for a resolution that
           turns the ED into a CR by requiring strong resolutions on

  <fantasai> This spec is currently undergoing major changes in line
             with the resolutions in
             During this process it is not safe to assume that the
             current form will be representative of what it will
             look like in the future. After the work in process is
             completed, it will closely resemble this proposal (link
             to Tab/Elika's proposal)
  fantasai: The two changes are inline with the resolutions and in
            the bottom I made it will closely resemble this proposal
            instead of more closely because the goal is to get
            fairly close to that proposal modulo the changes.
  MaRakow: I'm okay with this.
  fantasai: It makes it clearer where we're going.
  MaRakow: I like that text.

  fantasai: Can we resolve on this?
  Rossen: Does anyone object?

  RESOLVED: Add to the top of snap points "This spec is currently
            undergoing major changes in line with the resolutions in
            During this process it is not safe to assume that the
            current form will be representative of what it will look
            like in the future. After the work in process is
            completed, it will closely resemble this proposal (link
            to Tab/Elika's proposal)"
  Rossen: Please get on the phone and get this done, preferably
          before Sydney.

Using polar positioning as a part of absolute positioning

  jihye: Recently we opted to use polar-positioning in other
         positioning schemes. That could bring changes in round
         display. When polar-distance is non-auto an element can be
         positioned in polar-coordinates.
  jihye: Polar-origin and polar-anchor can be used independently
         from the polar positioning. The prefix polar- may not be
         needed. auto values for polar-origin and polar-angle will
         be different when polar-distance is auto or non-auto.
  jihye: When it's auto polar-origin a becomes 0:0. When it's
         non-auto polar-origin auto becomes center:center.
  jihye: In that case polar-origin works like a center property like
         bradk suggestion. bradk is that right?

  bradk: Pretty close. The polar-origin is very similar to center.
         It could be center-x and center-y independently. It's
         originating the center point relative to the containing
         block. That property, whatever it's called, would be an
         initial value of auto and would be triggered if something
         is the center. It wouldn't do anything if top right bottom
         left weren't auto. So if position: absolute and those four
         properties are auto, this property would locate the center.
  bradk: There's two parts to these polar properties. You locate the
         center and move at an angle. I'm suggesting this property
         is the one that centers when you give it non-auto and the
         other edge properties are auto.
  bradk: From the mailing list conversations we've come a long way
         toward agreeing. It's getting down to details like what we
         call it and how to combine. I suggested it being two
         properties with one short hand.

  jihye: I think the change in polar-origin and center you suggested
         is almost the same. The difference is anchor points in an
         element can be sent by polar-anchor when using polar-
         origin, but center can't combine with that.
  bradk: It could. polar-anchor is an offset. You're using
         polar-origin to position the item in the containing block
         and polar-anchor moves it one way or another.
  bradk: I think it could be. The naming would be odd, but if center
         does what polar-origin is doing you could have something
         like polar-anchor to nudge it. We do have margin-left and
         margin-top that are already doing that.
  bradk: The main thing polar-anchor brings is to use percentage of
         itself. Else wise margin can do the same thing.
  <jihye> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2016Jan/0044.html

  fantasai: I'm not sure clear...the e-mail from the agenda is a
            presentation..is there a summary of the discussion?
  bradk: It's evolved over several e-mails.
  fantasai: An email that's a summary would help.
  fantasai: Also, there's a lot of centering that can be done with
            alignment that would work with abspos.
  bradk: But sometimes you want to start a little off center.
  fantasai: And you can with including the offsets.
  fantasai: The model we have for using top and left etc. is that
            the offsets are using your containing block and you
            center in the remaining space.
  bradk: I think that's another possibility.

  bradk: Some of my use cases were you could position something all
         the way to the left and then use vertical centering on it.
  bradk: So it would be center of the object lining up with the left
  <fantasai> top: 0 ; bottom : 0; align-self: center;
  fantasai: What's easy with the alignment. You would say ^
  bradk: And you wouldn't need to know the object width or height?
  fantasai: No, it does centering like it should work.
  bradk: We should look into it. My main point was to separate the
         centering from the angular movement.
  fantasai: The centering is in the alignment spec.
  bradk: I wasn't sure from the spec what happens when you have more
         than one thing aligning. Are they handled independently?
  fantasai: An abspos element is positioned independent of siblings.
  bradk: I need to look into that more. That's a real possibility

  bradk: So if we use that I would go back to what jihye said with
         something else being not auto to activate such as polar-
  bradk: So the main point of contention is polar-anchor.
  bradk: Which is think is still replicating margin mostly except
         margin won't do a percentage of self, just of containing
  fantasai: This kind of important. You can't get an anchor of the
            top-left or center without being able to reference
            itself and those are two reasonable things.
  bradk: If that's the case I would rename it. It wouldn't apply
         only to polar-movement. It would be useful in general.
  bradk: It would be good for any positioned items.

  Rossen: We're overtime. Do we want to continue on the mailing list
          and resume next week?
  bradk: That's fine. Maybe fantasai once you catch up on the thread
         say how the alignment would work with the use cases?
  fantasai: Send me an e-mail with the e-mails and I'll look into
  bradk: I'll do that.
  Rossen: Okay. We don't need a resolution, but if you want to
          resume the discussion next week send us an e-mail.
  Rossen: Thanks everyone for hanging around for the call.
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2016 00:37:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:56 UTC