- From: Dael Jackson <daelcss@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 19:45:58 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
========================================= These are the official CSSWG minutes. Unless you're correcting the minutes, Please respond by starting a new thread with an appropriate subject line. ========================================= Future F2Fs ----------- - There will be room for everyone on every day at the May F2F thanks to the efforts of Ojan and Shane. - The Houdini group needs to decide if and when they'll need room at TPAC. CSS Snap Points --------------- - RESOLVED: Publish new WD of CSS Snap Points Snap Size FPWD (short name TBD) ------------------------------- - Step-sizing received favor as a new name. - Several implementors hadn't had time to review the spec. Though they were interested in solving the problem space, they weren't prepared to affirm that this ED is the direction they believe the group should go to solve it. - Implementors were given another week to review the spec in hopes of being able to resolve. We have an issue in the 2015 Snapshot for adding Will Change once it hits CR --------------------------------------------------------------------- - RESOLVED: Republish 2015 snap shot with Will Change added. CSS UI Implementor feedback on allowing pseudo-elements on form controls when appearance:none --------------------------------------------------------------------- - TabAtkins will write up a proposal for checkbox and radio buttons for next week detailing his thoughts while everyone else reviews the e-mails. CSS Values ---------- - RESOLVED: Allow calc() to be nested. - RESOLVED: Drop calc() from nested calc() and serialize it as parentheses. - calc() simplification for serializing specified values will continue on the mailing list and be on next week's agenda if needed. ===== FULL MINUTES BELOW ====== Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2016Mar/0233.html Present: Rossen Atanassov Tab Atkins Bert Bos David Baron Dave Cramer Elika Etemad Simon Fraser Daniel Glazman (IRC only) Tony Graham Koji Ishii Dael Jackson Brad Kemper Peter Linss Anton Prowse Matt Rakow (IRC only) François Remy Florian Rivoal Alan Stearns Regrets: Tantek Çelik Greg Whitworth Scribe: dael Future F2Fs =========== Rossen: Let's get started Rossen: Are there any additional agenda items? Bert: Maybe a reminder that Houdini needs to decide if they are meeting at TPAC. Rossen: Thank you Bert. We did discuss and we want to meet. I'll send a mail to the Houdini list and if everyone is on board we'll reserve with you. Thank you for the reminder. Snap Points =========== fantasai: Can we publish CSS snap points since there isn't hope of it getting more up to date? Rossen: Are all editors on the call? fantasai: I have no idea. Why don't you ask MaRakow if he wants to publish or not. Rossen: MaRakow are you on the call? <MaRakow> Irc only <fantasai> Question is just, should we publish what we have <fantasai> or rather, what MaRakow has so far <fantasai> so at least there's an update from the previous publication Rossen: IRC Only. Okay. We'll ask him or IRC and review this at the end with IRC responses. Rossen: Anything else that needs to be added? <MaRakow> It's fine to publish what's there currently, I requested this previously. Future F2Fs =========== Rossen: Quick reminder on May F2F. We'll be hosted at Google. There will be enough room for everyone on all days, including Wednesday. Thank you again for pulling this together on short notice, especially Shane and Ojan. Rossen: If you haven't booked, I'd recommend doing so. I'm not sure if there's anything big, but when I was tying to book there weren't too many options. Florian: If anyone is interested in AirBnB it's time we coordinate. I'm interested. Rossen: Florian, if you could just start a thread on the private list it would be great. Snap Points =========== fantasai: MaRakow says he thinks it's fine to publish. Can we resolve and someone action to publish? Rossen: Yes, let's vote. Objections to publishing CSS snap points as a new WD? Florian: One question, where are we? Florian: Along the merging process moving TabAtkins and fantasai items into MaRakow draft? * fantasai is guessing we are about 50% there Rossen: MaRakow is on IRC and is the one in the position to answer that. Rossen: As far as I know there's still outstanding merges, but the spec is in consumable version so there's no reason not to publish from that PoV. Rossen: Any objections or questions? Rossen: I'll take that silence as a no. Is there even interest? Florian: I'm more interested in where this is, but I'm excited to work on it. Rossen: I'm glad there's interest. <MaRakow> awesome :) fantasai: There HAS been interest! <fantasai> If there wasn't any interest in it, Tab and I wouldn't have dropped everything to work on it between the Paris and TPAC F2Fs, and there wouldn't be 3 implementations of varying bits of its functionality!!!! <Rossen> fantasai: let me reiterate again that what you and Tab did was great work. The editor of the draft also did a lot of work for the few years before that but the other implementers weren't implementing yet. RESOLVED: Publish new WD of CSS Snap Points <TabAtkins> I do question why there are any outstanding merges at this point, months after we were promised a complete draft and assured there's no need to add fantasai or I as editors to get it done. Snap Size FPWD (short name TBD) =============================== <astearns> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-snap-size/ <astearns> name suggestion: step-sizing <SteveZ> name suggestion: line-height-adjust koji: There was a discussion on property names. I think the best suggestion is step instead of snap. koji: The spec has the updated language. koji: The only thing I haven't changed is the short names because I wanted to get confirmation from the WG if these new names are okay and if we can publish. Florian: Last time we discussed there was a request from me for extra time and I need to apologize because I've been busy and have not. I do want to review and I haven't. I'm not sure if the others that wanted to review have had time. On my part I haven't. I'm really sorry. * fantasai hasn't had a chance to review, either astearns: I've reviewed and like the current state. I suggest we name it step-sizing. astearns: At the moment the title is CSS step size. We have CSS sizing in another draft so I was thinking step-sizing would work. koji: Can we go for that as both title and short name? astearns: Right. astearns: SteveZ mentioned line-height-adjust in IRC. This isn't just height and I'd hope this wasn't just line boxes, so I'd rather not restrict. koji: I'm good with that. Florian: Though I haven't had time to review, I know I shared concerns with astearns so that gives me some comfort. I'd still like to review. fantasai: I haven't had a chance to review either. My opinions aside, I'd like the WG to have consensus that this is a thing we want rather than some people saying it's an okay idea and others being eh. I think FPWD should be created when the WG has a positive, not a neutral opinion. fantasai: If there's only interest from koji and astearns and no other implementors that's not a good sign. If people think this is cool, then we should proceed. I want to hear from more people rather than have silence as a reason to publish. Florian: As an implementor I'm interested in the problem space, but I haven't reviewed the spec enough to meet that bar. Rossen: That's a fair point. Other implementors? Apple? Mozilla? Rossen: Can you talk in terms of interest? smfr: It's worth considering, but not high priority. It seems like a generally useful thing to implement long term. Florian: Are you interested in solving the problem, or solving it in this specific way? smfr: In the problem space. I'm not familiar enough with other solutions to be able to judge against those. dbaron: I'd like a chance to look at the spec. It's hard to comment now. Based on some discussions there was some interest, but hard to say amount. Rossen: For Edge I'll say along the same lines. It's an interesting problem to solve. The way Koji proposes to solve is interesting. In terms of priority it won't be high on the list for us for impl or spec work. <dbaron> What's the URL for this draft? <dbaron> (I don't see a URL in the agenda) <koji> dbaron: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-snap-size/ Rossen: If I have to summarize as a chair, sounds like the interest is low to moderate. Rossen: Is it worth waiting a week or two for the rest of the people to review the spec? <astearns> the spec is relatively short - it should not take too much time to review fantasai: I would really appreciate having Florian and dbaron take a more detailed look. I'd like to do that myself. I don't feel we have a very strong sense of this is definitely the right way to solve this. We have this is an interesting possible solution. I'd like to get to where we had something that is how we believe we want to solve the problem and then go to publish. fantasai: We have the ED so we can see. Rather than have 5 modules of 5 proposals, I'd rather we explore as to if this is the right direction and do WD when we're confident it's going in the right direction <dbaron> How does this relate to line-grid proposals? astearns: In regards to it relating to line-grid proposals, this is a useful tool for when you are using a line-grid. astearns: The line-grid will cause things to move and snap into place depending on the line height and grid spacing relationship. This is a way to ensure that the ratio is such that they do not shift. So this is complementary, particularly when related to block. Florian: This is part of why I want to review. It would be good for them to be complementary. I want to see how they work in the inline direction too. Rossen: So we'll give it another week or two if someone asks for two on the ML. When enough people have reviewed we'll discuss. CSSOM 4 Selectors Review ======================== <Rossen> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2016Mar/0213.html astearns: This is mainly a reminder that we agreed to look at the CSSOM one section a month and thi sis this months' section. astearns: If people have comments to make now, great. If not take this as notice you should look at this short section and help us finish it up. <glazou> thinks that section is ok <glazou> has one extra comment though Rossen: We have glazou at least that thinks it's ok. Anyone else show is currently ready to comment? Or is this an action to start review? fantasai: We should all take it as an action. ACTION everyone review this section of CSSOM 4 by the end of the month CSS UI Implementor feedback on allowing pseudo-elements on form controls when appearance:none ===================================================================== <Rossen> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2016Mar/0190.html Florian: This is TabAtkins with me replying. <TabAtkins> Be in in just a sec. Florian: Is TabAtkins there? If not let's delay a bit more Florian: Do we have a short topic? We have an issue in the 2015 Snapshot for adding Will Change once it hits CR ===================================================================== <Rossen> https://www.w3.org/TR/css-2015/#issue-d34d1161 Rossen: We have an issue for adding Will Change once it hits CR. I believe this is fantasai. fantasai: So should I create a new draft with that added and republish as the 2015 snapshot as intended? Florian: I think so, or is it 2016? fantasai: I think 2016 we can do later. Florian: Okay, I don't care strongly. <Bert> Let's publish a new snapshot, don't care if it is called 2015 or 2016. Rossen: So objections to republishing 2015 snap show with Will Change added? RESOLVED: Republish 2015 snap shot with Will Change added. * TabAtkins is here now Rossen: fantasai please do the republishing and thank you. CSS UI Implementor feedback on allowing pseudo-elements on form controls when appearance:none ===================================================================== TabAtkins: The issue is about standardizing the use of ::before/after on form controls. This is possible on webkit and blink today. TabAtkins: In general if you do ::before/after you'll get something useful. Typically you do appearance:none to wipe out the checkbox and use this to create cool styles. However these are not interoperable. TabAtkins: I know in general inputs are semi-replaced. I don't want to change that in general because figuring out what's in an input across platform is hard. We think we could handle just when there's appearance:none which makes it an empty <div>. We can say ::before/after work there. If we can spec this we can get interoperability. dbaron: In Chromium, does saying appearance:none on a check box makes it an inline block? Because I don't think that's Gecko, but we could do that. Florian: I think to the extend we can make appearance:none non-replaced I'm in favor. I'm not entirely sure we can make all types of things non-replaced. Do we go through every form element and decide if it can become a <div>? TabAtkins: This list isn't very long. I'm happy to go through what we can do. Checkboxes and radio are on the list. If we can figure out how to make appearance:none work in a way that matches what we do we should do that Rossen: Does making appearance:none take the check box out of the form control? Like that's not a check box? TabAtkins: It is still a checkbox for a11y purposes and whatnot. It removes the appearance. Rossen: So it's a checkbox but doesn't look like one. TabAtkins: Yeah. Florian: It's appearance not behavior. Florian: The way I specced it everything that only pertains to appearance has to be removed, but behavior must stay. That's fairly easy for checkbox because behavior is only DOM. Something like a dropdown calender still needs to look special when you interact. It can't be entirely flattened. Florian: Out of these, do some need to be replaced? If can say everything is flatted with appearance:none that's great, but if there's an exception we need to know. TabAtkins: I'm saying radio and checkbox now because they're simple. Look through the rest later. Rossen: On our end I'd need to take a bit more time to see what it means. ACTION Rossen review appearance:none and ::before/after email Florian: What you suggested sounds great. You wanting to start a new doc, I'm not sure why you'd need separate section. TabAtkins: Not a separate spec, just a doc to be able to drop in. TabAtkins: dbaron did you have implementation concerns? dbaron: If this is compatible with what Chromium does I'm okay. There may be some questions on appearance vs. webkit- appearance. TabAtkins: So how about I do a proposal for next week. In the mean time, Rossen explores the basic idea. Then we discuss next week. <bradk> How about ::before and ::after on images? * Bert is with bradk: wants them on images, too. (But realizes this will be a difficult to define...) smfr: bradk mentioned something on images. You can use the style not on broken images. We need a general review on ::before/after on replaced. TabAtkins: A broken image isn't quite defined if it's replaced or not. fantasai: It is defined in HTML spec and it's not replaced. TabAtkins: Form elements are never strictly defined to be replaced. We don't define what's inside of them in any meaningful way. <astearns> form elements are explicitly defined as non-replaced, in that they're in the non-replaced elements section in the html spec Florian: dbaron while you think on this you may want to ring Boris because I know he's mentioned this on WHATWG. TabAtkins: He suggested what I'm suggesting. Florian: In the discussion about appearance:none TabAtkins: We looked to see if we could remove our code, the usage is too high so we can't. He suggested appearance:none as the key to keep. <Florian> https://github.com/whatwg/compat/issues/6#issuecomment-188081087 Florian: He suggested that with appearance:none some things will need to stay. Florian: Take that as a part of your homework. Rossen: So TabAtkins will write his explainer document for checkbox and radio and we'll see if we can generalize more to other elements. CSS Values ========== Nesting calc() and serialization -------------------------------- <Rossen> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2016Mar/0042.html TabAtkins: This set of topics are in CR so we need approval of changes. fantasai: The last one doesn't have clear conclusion. TabAtkins: This is calc() and nesting. It was always intended that calc() be nestable. Any items inside a calc(). We intended the addr function for example. This is required to make variables work more easily. TabAtkins: The way I defined calc() technically only allows literals inside itself. I fixed this up and made sure calc() was written in generic concepts not literal. fantasai: I want to double check the edits for unintended effects. We need the group to agree calc() can be nested and that the inner calc() serializes out as parentheses. Does that sound good, bad, need more time? TabAtkins: Nesting calc() is the same as putting parentheses around things. fremy: In 2012 I wrote tests in the values test suite on this. It's in the test suite so I'm in favor of supporting the change. <fantasai> ACTION: fantasai review wording changes for nesting calc() to avoid unintended changes. <trackbot> Created ACTION-760 TabAtkins: Objections to making calc() nestable in the spec? Rossen: Does anyone allow nested calc()? <bradk> No objection from me. TabAtkins: I don't remember if we do, but the way implementations handle calc() is ad hoc. It wouldn't surprise me. Rossen: I think we don't allow nesting. So this will be at least a functional change. Rossen: I'm curious what that means for other implementors. TabAtkins: It's a functional change in so far as if you accept the format. It's not new behaviors, just syntax. Rossen: I'm just curious if someone supports this. TabAtkins: Don't know. I'm not pegging this on a compat bug. TabAtkins: You care about compat when it matters for page support, not for every single detail of an implementation. Rossen: In the context of calc() as long as it become equivalent of parentheses we should be fine. We don't support it now, certainly. TabAtkins: Do you object to the spec change? Rossen: No. <Bert> (I'm fine with nested calc, no opinion on how it serializes, other than that it does, somehow. :-)) <dbaron> I don't think we should look at introducing new features as a compatibility issue unless there's an actual compatibility problem we know about. TabAtkins: If no one else objects we can resolve. fantasai: There's 2 points. TabAtkins: They're independent. Does anyone object to allowing calc() to be nested? Rossen: Are there restrictions to level of nesting? TabAtkins: No. They're just like parentheses. Rossen: Okay, any objections, time requests? RESOLVED: Allow calc() to be nested. Rossen: I'm assuming you'll make the change? TabAtkins: Yeah. Clamping calc() values, serialization thereof --------------------------------------------- <Rossen> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2016Feb/0160.html TabAtkins: So do we need nested calc(), or treat them as parentheses and serialize as such. I don't care either way, but we need to decide. If the WG wants to keep the exact form we can go with that. Rossen: Feedback? Comments? Rossen: glazou is up. Rossen: We have to read IRC as he types. <glazou> the question is: will web authors understand they have nested calc() when there's only () <glazou> in a serialization <glazou> and what's impact on OM TabAtkins: [reads first question] I don't understand. <glazou> calc(... ()) Rossen: He's asking if you serialize back only parentheses when calc() was nested, would there be loss where people wouldn't know if this was calc() or parentheses and would that matter. <glazou> what Rossen said TabAtkins: Doesn't matter anyway because they're equivalent. <glazou> no that matters in OM Rossen: They're logically equivalent but for editors they may not be. <glazou> you have to know to be able to tweak it programmatically if you need fremy: I don't see why someone would write calc() inside calc(). The only reason we allow this is to allow variables in a calc(). I don't expect impact on authors. Rossen: This would also impact tools. Tools can add nested calcs and they may expect it to be serialized back. <glazou> right <TabAtkins> Yeah, important case is "--foo: calc(1px + 2em); -- bar: calc(var(--foo) + 10vw);" <TabAtkins> If calcs cant' be nested, you have to do some clumsy stuff instead. Florian: The general tooling argument about preserving more syntax is better because you get more author intent. In general I agree. In this case there isn't different author intent. The only case where you want calc() to nest is when variables do it for you. It's not something you'd want to preserve. * glazou agrees that computations have to be nestable TabAtkins: I don't see when you would have a compound expression where you'd put a calc() in purpose. You may have a compound made of a bunch of calcs and you would serialize that out. <glazou> would prefer a model where what's inside calc( and ) can be more complex than a single operation and still be a single calc() <glazou> but of course we had that discussion several times in the past <TabAtkins> glazou: Yes, that's already allowed. Again, nesting calc() offers *no new functionality whatsoever*. <smfr> do we need () for precedence? calc(A * (B + C)) <TabAtkins> smfr: Yeah, parens already exist, for that purpose exactly. Rossen: I would suggest keeping the PoV where an editor has a button that adds a calc() button and you can do it as many times as you want. It's a valid test case. Florian: I think what we're saying is if you're nesting it's preferable to use parentheses. Writing extra code to support sub-optimal usage isn't good. If we can come up with a use case where you're gaining anything, that's fine. It's worth dropping information to avoid a noisy stylesheet. fantasai: This is about as significant as to if you used tab or spaces for indentation. At some level you'll care, but for the APIs in the CSSOM it doesn't matter any more. Florian: Since our OM doesn't fully preserve, we're not at that level. <Florian> sorry Daniel, I'm usually on the same side as you on these questions, but this time it feels the other way is better. <glazou> Florian np <Florian> but I can still see where you're coming from. <glazou> I am trying to help understanding better the request, that still seems obscure to me for potential harm for editors Rossen: It sounds like there's not a lot of push back on the call. The person trying to object is glazou. glazou will you need more time or are you okay resolving to drop calc() on parentheses. <glazou> no I am not objecting Rossen: And while we wait, should we postpone the next topic? TabAtkins: Next one maybe. fantasai: When you're serializing the computed value of calc, yeah. Rossen: So glazou doesn't object to dropping calc() from nested calc() and leaving it as parentheses. Anyone object? RESOLVED: Drop calc() from nested calc() and serialize it as parentheses. calc() simplification for serializing specified values ------------------------------------------------------ <Rossen> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2016Feb/0160.html fantasai: So it's if we perform clamping because serialization. <TabAtkins> calc(10px - 1em) <== positive? negative? can't tell at parse time. fantasai: So in the past if you have -5 in calc() we'd drop at parse. We can't do that. So if we're serializing, do we perform clamping and than serialize it out. TabAtkins: It's not if we should, it's I spec it and it needs to be checked for correct. We can't tell if calc() is + or -. If it resolves outside the range we clamp. But there's also a rule that we unwrap the calc() if it's a single value at certain stages. We have to clamp or it doesn't round trip. I wrote the rules, we need approval on those changes. <dbaron> I'd like more than 30 seconds to review this issue... Florian: And the rest was discussed years ago? TabAtkins: Yes, the existence of clamping was decided years ago fantasai: We spec it does, but not what stage. TabAtkins: And because the unwrapping we have to say how and when it happens. We clamp as soon as possible at computed value time. If you unwrap you pop out the clamped value. <fantasai> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values-3/#calc-serialize fantasai: Here's the section. The two things to pay attention to are clamping and how do we manage the simplification of calc() for serializing. fantasai: Those are the issues, they're in the DoC. <fantasai> clamping issue https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values-3/issues-cr-2015#issue-11 <fantasai> simplification issue https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values-3/issues-cr-2015#issue-17 Rossen: In interest of time, let's go to the ML. If we can't resolve there we will do this next week. Rossen: Remember next week we'll still be one hour earlier. Rossen: Thanks and we'll chat next week.
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2016 23:46:57 UTC