- From: Dael Jackson <daelcss@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:13:34 -0500
- 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.
=========================================
Interaction of initial letter and ruby
--------------------------------------
- RESOLVED: initial-letter and ruby is explicitly undefined.
- dauwhe will incorporate this change into the spec.
Absolutely positioned boxes in inline relatives: not interoperable
------------------------------------------------------------------
- RESOLVED: Standardize on Edge behavior as described by dbaron in
the issue
(https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/609#issuecomment-259058527)
- Rossen will incorporate this change into the spec.
Clarify that most (all?) high-dpi devices anchor on pixel, rather
than physical, unit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
- RESOLVED: Accept pull request from issue 713:
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/713
Port HTML note on zoom/accessibility
------------------------------------
- RESOLVED: Take pull request 714:
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/714
Steps to CR: Box Alignment, Media Queries 4, Selectors 4, Text 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Media Queries 4
- There are several edits that need to be made to incorporate
resolutions from previous telecons.
- Most of them can be done by Florian or TabAtkins; ChrisL
will need to do a few that relate to Color.
- Florian will organize the effort to get these
resolutions published.
- Florian will try and prepare the only unresolved topic
(https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/690) for
telecon discussion soon.
- Selectors 4
- dbaron will add the language change he needs to write to
github and try to write the changes soon.
- Box Alignment
- There are multiple edits around grid resolutions that need
to be edited in before republishing a WD.
- After that most remaining issues are around two value
keywords and may be forked to a later level.
- Text 3
- astearns will try and incorporate the pending edits and will
reach out for help if he runs short on time.
- Transforms
- astearns was actioned to remind people to incorporate the
edits from the Lisbon F2F.
- There was a general agreement that more people could be involved
in incorporating edits into specs.
- The "needs edits" flag will begin to be user regularly to
indicate issues where this is a resolution reached but the
spec needs it edited in.
- There was also a suggestion that a flag should be added to
indicate what edits would be good for someone new so they
can get their feet wet and more experienced editors can
focus on harder edits.
- The end of year publication deadline is 19 Dec which means the
last date for a CR resolution that could potentially be
published this year would be 6 December.
===== FULL MINUTES BELOW ======
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2016Nov/0067.html
Present:
Rachel Andrew
Rossen Atanassov
David Baron
Bert Bos
Tantek Çelik
Dave Cramer
Alex Critchfield
Elika Etemad
Daniel Glazman
Dael Jackson
Brad Kemper
Chris Lilley
Myles Maxfield
Anton Prowse
Liam Quin
Jen Simmons
Geoffrey Sneddon
Alan Stearns
Lea Verou
Greg Whitworth
Steve Zilles
Scribe: dael
Interaction of initial letter and ruby
======================================
astearns: We have enough people so let's start
astearns: Does anyone have any additional items? I noted Florian's
<Florian> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/654
Florian: I want to clarify I'm not bringing this up because
there's a use case, I think we should be clarifying the
spec.
Florian: For unrelated reasons I was reading the ruby layout
section but had initial-letter in the back of my mind. I
couldn't tell if it was trying to define something or not.
Florian: After diving in further I think the right answer is to
disallow initial-letter. If we spend a bit of time
convincing ourselves we can close for good. If we think
even that is not worth our time we could at least make it
explicit that this is undefined rather than have a bit of
text trying to define something maybe but it's not clear.
Florian: That would save the next person trying to look it up.
dauwhe: I'm fine with that. Certainly as a L1 feature I don't
think we need it since we haven't seen a lot of use cases.
I'm not qualified to design how it would work.
Florian: I've spent a fair amount of time looking for use cases
and I've failed. It tells me it's not terribly important.
When we have ruby on the over side of an initial-letter
it's clear, but when it's under it's a lot less clear how
it would work. Between the challenge of how to have it
work and the lack of evidence it's wanted I think we can
disallow. But we can also have the ability to leave it
undefined.
Florian: It's hard to make sense of what it means.
<SteveZ> +1 for leaving it explicitly undefined
Rossen: Can we resolve on undefined in case someone has time and
finds a use case? Then they can not be compltely blocked
out. If we define it as not-supported they're blocked.
<tantek> +1 for explicitly undefined
<bradk> +1 undefined
dauwhe: I'm fine with that. I can add an explicit statement to
initial-letter that it's undefined in ruby and come talk
to us if there's use cases
<Bert> +1 for explicitly undefined
<glazou> +1
astearns: Proposed resolution: explicitly say it's undefined.
Objections?
RESOLVED: initial-letter and ruby is explicitly undefined.
astearns: Who will make edits?
dauwhe: I can.
Florian: I think you should say what's in the github issue exactly
<Florian> undefined whether it applies to children of ruby base
container boxes and of ruby container boxes
dauwhe: Okay.
Absolutely positioned boxes in inline relatives: not interoperable
==================================================================
astearns: Unfortunately, fremy isn't on.
Rossen: I'm here. I went through this briefly before the meeting.
Issue on github was converging to spec the Edge behavior
and Chrome in ltr case. I saw support from dbaron and I
think fremy was looking for resolution on that proposed
behavior.
Rossen: That's as far as I know.
astearns: dbaron described the issue in github as he understands
and is happy to standardize on it.
dbaron: Edge and Chrome agree for ltr but disagree in other
directions. I think Edge does the parallel for other
directions and Chrome is doing silly things so I'm happy
with Edge.
dbaron: Original proposal was standardize on Edge and Chrome
behavior which is only a single thing.
astearns: Anyone from Chrome with an opinion on their rtl behavior?
Rossen: And vertical.
astearns: Right.
Rossen: In our case everything is logically the same regardless of
direction.
Rossen: No one here from Chrome or webkit?
myles: I'm here from webkit.
Rossen: Opinion?
myles: Nope.
astearns: Proposed resolution: standardize on Edge behavior as
desc by dbaron in the issue.
<dbaron> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/609#issuecomment-259058527
astearns: And we can have it reopened by Chrome or webkit if
necessary.
RESOLVED: Standardize on Edge behavior as described by dbaron in
the issue
(https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/609#issuecomment-259058527)
ACTION Rossen incorporate the language for the resolution
"standardize on Edge behavior as desc by dbaron in the
issue"
Clarify that most (all?) high-dpi devices anchor on pixel, rather
than physical, unit
=================================================================
<Florian> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/708
Florian: We have this whole logic on how CSS pixel works etc and
then say for high def use physical inches which is not
what they do in general.
Florian: We should leave mechanics as they are and only leave
print to anchor on physical and switch high def to user
reference pixel.
ChrisL: I agree I think when it was written [missed]
<ChrisL> it was just printers we were thinking of at the time
Florian: He says when written only thing high res was printers.
<ChrisL> so +1
astearns: My understanding is that sentences would change to say
for print media anchor is a physical unit. For devices
it's recommended that the anchor be a pixel unit.
Florian: Yes and there's a pull request for that.
<Florian> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/713
astearns: Let me look at that.
astearns: [reads]
astearns: Seems fine to me.
astearns: Objections?
RESOLVED: Accept pull request from issue 713:
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/713
Port HTML note on zoom/accessibility
====================================
<astearns> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/714
Florian: This is about css device adapt. It has a zoom descriptor
and at least in the viewport equivalent and meta viewport
equivalent browsers have started to ignore it because
it's user hostile. So there's some scenarios where UA
honors when it's a web view in an app. Since it's
sometimes honored it's worth specing. This warns authors
if you try and disable zoom it might not do it.
<tantek> seems reasonable
Florian: This is in parallel to one that does the same in HTML.
Florian: It makes sense to me but since it's a normative change
allowing UAs to ignore makes sense to me.
Rossen: We're proposing that we add the warning that suppression
of zoom may or may not work.
Florian: It's also a normative allowance for browsers to ignore.
Rossen: So at this point it becomes a rec for how the zoom should
be handled...it's a hint but may not be honored.
Florian: Yes.
Rossen: I'm fine with that.
astearns: Other options?
tantek: Sounds good to me.
astearns: Thanks.
astearns: Proposal: take pull request 714 which allows UA to
ignore the zoom factor limit and adds a note on the fact
that UA almost always allow users to zoom and gives you
some hints about what you might want to do as you're
creating a browser.
astearns: Objections?
RESOLVED: Take pull request 714:
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/714
Steps to CR: Box Alignment, Media Queries 4, Selectors 4, Text 3
================================================================
Media Queries 4
---------------
astearns: fantasai sent an update, but didn't do MQ4
<dbaron> fantasai's update was
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2016OctDec/0130.html
<tantek> re: MQ4
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Amediaqueries-4
<ChrisL> reminder that progress of in-process transitions is at
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/blob/master/Transitions.md
Florian: Mostly I haven't had time to work on it but there's
almost no blocker. There has been an issue raised on
pointer, hover, and variance. This is highly
controversial discussion at the moment with sides not
understanding each other. We'll have to go through it but
I haven't prepared today.
Florian: As far as I'm aware this is the only issue.
astearns: Could you prepare it for next week?
Florian: Maybe. I can try.
astearns: Is there someone that can help?
Florian: It would be good if TabAtkins looks.
Florian: We should look in the coming weeks. I can't promise next
week, but soon.
astearns: Do you have a link?
Florian: I'll paste it.
<Florian> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/690
astearns: Let's get TabAtkins mentioned on the issue.
tantek: Florian, you said only one issue with a normative change?
Florian: No, I mean we've resolved on the others and I need to
make the changes.
tantek: Oh, so the others are still open because the edits haven't
been made.
Florian: Yes. I think we've resolved on everything else and I just
need to make the changes.
tantek: Cool. Sounds like we're close.
astearns: Do you think you can get the edits in time to publish
this year?
Florian: Probably.
astearns: Can anyone help?
Florian: TabAtkins can do it as much as I can, yes.
Florian: There were 1 or 2 color related issues that ChrisL said
he can do so we're waiting on him for those.
astearns: Can I action you to organize the work?
ChrisL: Florian if you can point me to the issues?
Florian: Yes.
<Florian> for Chris: https://drafts.csswg.org/mediaqueries-4/#issue-156eb0fd
and https://drafts.csswg.org/mediaqueries-4/#issue-2650c6fe
ACTION Florian organize the MQ4 work
<trackbot> Created ACTION-800
<Florian> chris: this one is also about color, but I don't *need*
your help on it, since we have a clear resolution
(IIRC): https://drafts.csswg.org/mediaqueries-4/#issue-d9e3b586
Selectors 4
-----------
astearns: [reads fantasai comment on selectors 4] there's a
section for dbaron?
dbaron: I'm not the only person that could do it, but I and some
others weren't happy with the previous re-write which
described selector processing as rtl.
astearns: Do you know how to re-write it?
dbaron: I hadn't thought about it. I didn't realize until
yesterday that she thought I was writing.
astearns: We can be pretty sure that she doesn't have time so can
you look and see if you can get to it in the next week
or two?
dbaron: I can look.
astearns: Feel free and send something to the list saying it's
more work than you can get to.
tantek: Which issue is it?
<tantek> looking at
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aopen%20is%3Aissue%20label%3Aselectors-4%20
dbaron: I think it does exist but I need to look.
dbaron: Discussion might predate the github switch.
Florian: It does.
tantek: It's worth having an issue if it's a WD blocker.
astearns: Agreed.
ACTION dbaron to set up and issue for the selectors 4 change
<trackbot> Created ACTION-801
Box Alignment
-------------
<tantek> box alignment is presumably
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aopen%20is%3Aissue%20label%3Acss-align-3%20
astearns: Box Alignment which fantasai wrote needs 1 change for
grid items and then could be republished. Then she talks
about stripping bits of it so we can just have Grid and
Flexbox items.
astearns: Does anyone else have additional things to happen to box
alignment?
astearns: tantek just listed issues.
tantek: I'm just asking github. Nothing intelligent.
<tantek> is that label:"Needs Edits" is for?
<tantek> are we consistently using label:"Needs Edits" ?
<tantek> does label:"Needs Edits" mean issue resolved but just
needs edits to be made to the draft?
astearns: We did resolve the shorthands would be place-* but we
don't have syntax for the value which Mats is asking for.
astearns: I was supposed to split that into another issue...that's
on me.
astearns: Who are Box Alignment editors? Just fantasai and
TabAtkins?
Rossen: I think it's just them.
astearns: Would it be good to add another person? It looks like
there are resolutions that could have been edited in.
Anyone interested in taking it on?
[fantasai joins the call]
fantasai: Hi!
fantasai: I think for alignment most of the issues are around
anything with two values. If we drop those we can go to
CR quickly. That include the shorthand issues.
astearns: Are these edits something you can get to in next few
weeks? I'm assuming not.
fantasai: I might have a few hours around Thanksgiving. And then
hopefully we can make sure anything other than issues
around two values is handled. Then someone can strip the
two values items out of the spec and do CR.
astearns: You said it would be okay to republish with a change to
deal with grid items. Is that a first step?
fantasai: That's a good idea. Pushing that edit would be good. I
think it need corresponding edits in Grid.
astearns: So first is get intrinsic ratio edits in, republish as
a WD.
fantasai: Yeah. If TabAtkins has time he could do that.
Editing in resolutions
----------------------
astearns: To answer tantek there is a Needs Edits label in github.
I don't think we're using that and it would be fine if
we did.
tantek: It could indicate an issue has reached resolution as well.
astearns: That's how I would interpret the label. There are issues
with a note saying that there's a resolution with a
minutes link. It's not easy to see what's awaiting
edits. It would be good to have that label.
tantek: Especially for things trying to take to CR.
<rachelandrew> I would be happy to help with Grid or Box Alignment
edits, I know those specs well although might need
some initial help with process.
tantek: It also may help when you've asked for additional editors.
It could alert the broader community if you want to get
your feet wet by submitting edits here's a bunch of them.
astearns: We could have the starter issue label too to indicate
there's some that don't need years of experience. Some
things, like the selectors one, we need a dbaron level
of experience.
tantek: Yes, this could also let experienced people focus on
harder ones.
astearns: Thanks rachelandrew for volunteering. Look at the issues
list and see if there's something you could put a pull
request for.
Text 3
------
astearns: Last spec is Text 3. Still has some issues, but could be
published. koji are you on?
astearns: This is one where there are a bunch of edits anyone
could do.
astearns: I may have time in next week or two. If I run out of
time I'll ask for help.
<tantek> +1 to Text WD
astearns: Are there any other publishing topics people want to
bring up? Terribly old WD?
<ChrisL> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/blob/master/Transitions.md
ChrisL: I would like to point out that we have a document for
transition requests in progress. If you do a request this
should say latest status.
<gregwhitworth> ChrisL: isn't Tables done? That should probably be
updated
Transforms
----------
fantasai: Transitions, animations, and transforms are all likely
out of date.
astearns: We did resolve in Lisbon to push 3d transforms to next
level and push transforms to PR. Is anyone working on
that?
ACTION astearns poke people about getting transforms edits done.
<trackbot> Created ACTION-802
astearns: gregwhitworth had a question on table transition?
ChrisL: I'll check and update the doc. Anyone else can update it
too.
Last publication date
---------------------
astearns: tantek had a process question about last publish date
for CR this year.
astearns: When does publishing moratorium start?
ChrisL: Dec 19
<ChrisL> December 19 - Jan 1
astearns: So last chance date for CR would be a week or two before?
ChrisL: Yeah.
Florian: So we have 2 weeks.
tantek: We'd need CR call before.
ChrisL: You have to have a transition request and have a week
between. Call can happen between. If DoC is in good shape
you can skip the transition call. We're getting better at
that.
tantek: I noticed.
tantek: CR transition requires manual publish.
ChrisL: So it's a Tuesday or Thursday, yes.
ChrisL: The system can't handle the patent policy aspect.
tantek: What's the last Tuesday or Thursday before Dec 19 because
that will be busy?
<gsnedders> Thursday 15th
ChrisL: 19th is a Monday so Thursday the 15th
tantek: So call completed by 13th and stage 14th?
ChrisL: Correct.
ChrisL: So 6th is the hard deadline to put in a request.
ChrisL: Nicely done tantek that's good to have.
* tantek is slowly becoming a project manager
* ChrisL grins
astearns: Let's see what we can get done by the end of this month.
Possibly all the way to the 6th if you really want to
see how quickly things can be done...or not.
astearns: Any other topics? If not we can close early.
astearns: Thanks everyone for calling in!
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2016 01:14:38 UTC