[CSSWG] Minutes Telecon 2017-04-12 [css-writing-modes] [css-transforms] [css3-fonts] [css-text-justify] [css-values] [css-rhythm] [css-alignment]

  These are the official CSSWG minutes.
  Unless you're correcting the minutes,
 Please respond by starting a new thread
   with an appropriate subject line.

Spec REC-ing

  - There is a goal to take Writing Modes to PR at the F2F next
      week, so anyone with interest was asked to review the DoC
      & Implementation Report
      in advance of the meeting.
  - Some of the changes were made to the Fonts 3 test font, the rest
      will be made soon.
  - The SVG breakout call made it through most of the Transforms
      topics that needed SVG input.

Partial implementations of space-evenly in grid but not flexbox

  - Discussion on what's the right approach and what is too hard for
      implementors will happen at the F2F.

How to NOT justify a piece of text inside a justified paragraph?

  - RESOLVED: Allow text-justify:none to apply to inlines.

Ambiguities with 0 valid for all dimensions

  - RESOLVED: Only spec the unitless 0 quirk for transforms &

Define which subresources block the DOM load event

  - RESOLVED: Add proposed DOM load events to Values & Units.

Figure out the interaction between line-height-step and the lh and
    rlh units

  - The proposed solution is lh includes calculation of
      line-height-step and if lh is used in line-height-step
      property, it refers to unadjusted line-height property.
  - The group will resolve once the formal spec text is available.

Alignment Issues

  - RESOLVED: Push fallback alignments to L4.
  - RESOLVED: Safe & unsafe keywords ordered before alignment
  - RESOLVED: Drop justify-content: baseline.


Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2017Apr/0026.html

  Rachel Andrew
  Rossen Atanassov
  Tab Atkins
  Tantek Çelik
  Benjamin De Cock
  Dave Cramer
  Alex Critchfield
  Elika Etemad
  Dael Jackson
  Myles Maxfield
  Michael Miller
  Melanie Richards
  Florian Rivoal
  Jen Simmons
  Alan Stearns
  Lea Verou
  Steve Zilles

  David Baron
  Bert Bos
  Daniel Glazman
  Tony Graham
  Anton Prowse

Scribe: dael

Agenda Setting

  Rossen: Let's get going!
  Rossen: Any additional things to add to the agenda?
  fantasai: Probably the alignment issues.
  Rossen: What about?
  fantasai: I think I sent an email yesterday.
  Rossen: [looking]
  <fantasai> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2017AprJun/0019.html
  Rossen: Is that the query at the bottom of the email?
  fantasai: There's the 3 need input ones.
  <Rossen> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Acss-align-3
  Rossen: The three I pasted ^.
  Rossen: That's great. If we're going to start changing tags
          anything that needs agenda+ should have that. Needs input
          sounds to me like a please respond.
  fantasai: Sure. I think at least one was deferred from earlier
  Rossen: Sure. It's just easier to only track agenda+. Do they need
          to be today?
  fantasai: Nope.
  Rossen: Anything else?

  Rossen: Quick reminder, we have F2F next week. Please add agenda
          topics. Safe travels.

Spec REC-ing

  Rossen: Writing modes impl report...Is koji on?
  koji: Yes.
  Rossen: How are we doing with the impl report?
  koji: I think it's done from my POV. I'm wondering if anyone can
        give feedback and if there's any other work needed to move
        to PR.
  koji: astearns sent we need a DoC and I think it's done.
  koji: Advice on what to do next is appreciated.
  Florian: koji can you send links so I'm reviewing the right thing?
  <koji> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-writing-modes-3/implementation-report.html
  <koji> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-writing-modes-3/issues-cr-2015
  koji: Implementation report & DoC^
  Florian: I would like to review, but haven't had time. Should we
           resolve to go to PR if everything is good next week?
  Rossen: That would be great. Would there be enough people to
          review until then?
  <astearns> I will review the doc, have already looked at the
             implementation report
  Florian: We can pre-review until then. Going through this during
           the meeting with review ahead if possible.
  Rossen: If everyone interested in Writing Modes could take a look
          at both docs before the meeting it would be great. We'll
          try and go to PR during the meeting. Thanks koji for
          taking the time to do these.

  Rossen: Fonts L3
  Rossen: ChrisL and Myles I believe the font issue is addressed.
  myles: There were two issues. One is broken on some platforms, one
         is that it didn't support everything Chris wanted to test.
         I fixed the first, not the second.
  Rossen: So we have a way to do some set of tests and ChrisL is
          asking for more features. Are you planning on adding those
  myles: Probably on the plane to Tokyo.
  Rossen: Oh, that would be great.
  Rossen: Do you know with the fixed font what percentage of the
          tests pass?
  myles: I don't.
  Rossen: Okay, thanks for helping.

  Rossen: Cascade L3 we had some test start to be added by
  Rossen: We did discuss last week Mozilla will look for somebody to
          try and locate tests. Just a ping to Mozilla folks did you
          find someone? Or should we postpone until F2F?
  <tantek> postpone
  Rossen: Okay, waiting. Conditional rules is the same, it's on the

  Rossen: smfr was supposed to look at V&U edits. I believe that's
          wait for F2F.

  Rossen: Backgrounds & borders- did we make any progress on further
          evaluation on what was failing before?
  Rossen: I'll take that as he is not on call.

  Rossen: Transforms L1.
  Rossen: We did have the SVG call last week and we resolved on a
          few issues.
  Rossen: fantasai correct me, but I think we made it through almost
          all pending transform L1 issues.
  fantasai: We focused on the ones impacting SVG.
  Rossen: Right, I'm saying the ones that needed their input.
  fantasai: Right.

  fantasai: Rossen we're at 15 minutes, we're just at status
            reporting too. Maybe we should do this by email or at
            least figure out who is not here or figure out what's
            not done before.
  fantasai: If you want every week for me to give you a list of
            specs I haven't worked on I can do that every week.
  Rossen: Why would that apply to you.
  fantasai: Because I don't feel we're making any progress.
  Rossen: Let's table this until F2F and have it there. Will that
          work for you?
  fantasai: Yes.
  <tantek> can we timebox status updates to first 5 min of call? and
           start at 9:00?
  <tantek> (modest proposal :) )

  Rossen: Did we republish Flexbox?
  fantasai: It has open issues.
  fantasai: Grid is waiting for Mats to say if he's okay on an issue
            and we're blocked on publication.

Partial implementations of space-evenly in grid but not flexbox

  <Rossen> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1167
  Florian: CSS align adds a bunch of values that apply in multiple
           layout modes. The guidelines to impl is the same where we
           say don't ship until you impl everything. Because it's in
           a bunch of layout modes that didn't happen. Space-evenly
           is impl only for Grid in some browsers.
  Florian: If you try to use @supports to detect it fails because
           it's implemented, but not in flexbox. Do we intend people
           should hold off until implementing in all layout modes?
           If no, what do we intend? What's happening right now
           seems not great. I want to give some advice on what
           should be done.

  Rossen: I see fantasai did a PR with some edits.
  Florian: I had not seen that.
  Rossen: I wonder if that's enough to address the issue.
  Florian: [reads through github]
  Rossen: fantasai is there anything else you want to add?
  <fantasai> no
  <fantasai> I have nothing to add
  Florian: I'm not sure I understand the edit.
  Florian: Can you explain the intention, fantasai?
  fantasai: Let's discuss during the F2F then.
  Florian: Quickly, are current implementations doing the right
  fantasai: Some aren't.
  Florian: Sure. We can take it next week.

  fantasai: Somebody impl a keyword for align-content in grid that
            means nothing in flexbox. If you do align-content in
            flexbox you must impl all keywords to claim support. The
            keyword has to be impl across all layout modules for
            which the impl claims support.
  Florian: We'll need impl feedback.
  fantasai: I think they're unwilling to do all at once. So not grid
            and flexbox and abspos and multicol etc. at the same
            time. That's fine. Don't support start and center and
            not end on multicol. If you're going to support the
            property you don't have to do it on every layout mode,
            but you have to support all the keywords.
  Florian: I think that's what the Chromium folks were saying was
           too hard.
  fantasai: I don't see why that would be too much. Once you have it
            the keywords are easy.
  Florian: So this needs to be between you, me, and someone from

  Roosen: Next is "Define interaction of display:contents and
          replaced elements"
  Rossen: Seems like this is push to F2F.
  Rossen: Unless fantasai or anyone wants to add something I suggest
          we move on.

  Rossen "Should anonymous boxes always inherit through the box
  fantasai: I think this would benefit from dbaron and boris input.
  Rossen: Anyone else want to discuss?
  <tantek> I think that's a good one to save for f2f
  <tantek> since it usually helps to have diagrams for anything with
           anon boxes

How to NOT justify a piece of text inside a justified paragraph?

  fantasai: That use case is handled by text-justify and using value
            none. Currently that's the block containers and
            optionally inline. We could solve by applying to inlines
            in general, but is that something people can make sense
            out of? Would impl be willing to support?
  Rossen: So you're saying I could have a span with text-align:
          justify and the text in that span will span?
  fantasai: text-justify: none to the span and text-align: justify
            to the <p>
  fantasai: I'm willing to give this a go. If there's a combo of
            values that makes no sense that can be undefined.
  Rossen: So intended behavior is that the basic layout of the
          current segment that sits outside the inline is not
          considered for justification for the rest of the segments?
  fantasai: You have a line of text with 5 segments, each with a
            different justification. Those five segments will behave
            differently depending on their justification property.
  fantasai: The issue is it's unclear with all these options on one
            line, how do you prioritize? That's the reason why I
            wasn't sure. Certainly the none is straight forward. The
            issue comes up when you have more specific instructions.

  Rossen: So from implementor POV it doesn't seem crazy. What are
          the use cases for having the behaviors?
  fantasai: If you want something to not justify none is useful.
            Another is you might want inter-character justification
            within a long phrase of quoted English. I don't know.
  dauwhe: I want this.
  dauwhe: To suppress justification in certain spans this would be
  <jensimmons> +1
  fantasai: Then I propose we add it and people can add issues if

  Rossen: Any objections to allowing text-justify:none to apply to

  RESOLVED: allow text-justify:none to apply to inlines

Ambiguities with 0 valid for all dimensions

  Rossen: We don't have TabAtkins.
  TabAtkins: I am on.

  TabAtkins: A while back in a meeting I missed we decided to allow
             unitless 0 for all angles because there were places
             where impl allowed it. I don't think we did for all
  fantasai: Correct.
  TabAtkins: Even just on length vs angle it causes grammar
             ambiguity in motion where the shorthand can combine a
             length and angle. In general this will become a
             problem. Unitless 0 are a legacy mistake. This will
             cause footguns in the future. I would like to revisit
             the decision and make it unitless 0 angles in the
             functions that allow them as a legacy thing and then
             restrict to just lengths in grammars.
  <fremy> I think that makes sense

  Florian: Since you're revisiting, do you recall the arguments for
  TabAtkins: Basically, the places are the common places where angle
             is used. It was a harmonization effort. Reasonable
             argument in general, but I believe in this case it's
             not worth the effort.
  Rossen: I also vaguely remember when we discussed...I can't find
          the minutes to recall...
  fantasai: It was Sydney I believe.
  TabAtkins: In the thread posted on 3/13/16 called minutes...part 1
             web compat challenges
  <fantasai> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2016Mar/0205.html
  Rossen: Sooo, okay. I'm assuming you took those...are you now
          proposing to change the resolution?
  TabAtkins: Yes. Given now that I have evidence it's causing syntax
             ambiguous in a spec and will likely continue to do so
             in other specs. I would like to avoid this footgun of
             ambiguous token types.
  Rossen: Other opinions?

  TabAtkins: From the summary there were three options. 1) file bugs
             to fix the code, 2) spec the quirk for transforms &
             gradients, 3) allow for all. I think 2 is the way to go.
  <fantasai> would like to hear from implementors, esp dbaron &
             smfr, but otherwise has no objection
  <Florian> sounds sane to me.
  Rossen: Who is editing?
  TabAtkins: Me or leaverou
  Rossen: Okay.
  Rossen: So you're calling to change the resolution to only have
          the quirk for transforms & gradients and TabAtkins or
          leaverou can make the edits.
  Rossen: Objections?

  RESOLVED: Only spec the unitless 0 quirk for transforms &

  <leaverou> is there a Github issue for this?
  <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1162

Define which subresources block the DOM load event

  <Rossen> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1088
  TabAtkins: This is a good question.
  * fantasai votes for CSSOM :p
  TabAtkins: I suspect...probably in the definition of URL in V&U.
             It's not great.

  gsnedders: That doesn't work for @import.
  TabAtkins: That's fine because url type is string or URL function
  fantasai: That's not true.
  TabAtkins: The generic <url> is not, but it's defined it can be
  fantasai: It's noted that in some places it can be but those
            places have to define.
  TabAtkins: Which import does.
  TabAtkins: So if we'll define it probably V&U. Other choice is
             distributing it everywhere, but we would need concepts
             to link to. I don't have a strong opinion.
  gsnedders: Some will depend on if everything has same behavior.
  TabAtkins: It's fine to have a list of different behaviors.
  Rossen: Does a separate module make sense?
  fantasai: I think I agree with TabAtkins. I think we should define
            there for properties and then the @rules should define
            for themselves what they do. It would be weird if
            backgrounds is different than counter styles.
  Rossen: Okay. So let's start in V&U

  Florian: I'm wondering about this all properties should behave the
           same is a correct assertion.
  TabAtkins: We didn't assert that.
  Florian: Then it's good.
  Rossen: Obj to adding proposed DOM load events to V&U?

  RESOLVED: add proposed DOM load events to V&U

Figure out the interaction between line-height-step and the lh and
    rlh units

  Florian: We have lh and rlh unit and we have line-height-step
           property. The later should influence the formers.
  Florian: So the lh is eq to the value of line-height property. If
           there's line-height-step it steps up the size so lh and
           rlh should step up.
  fantasai: I think it makes sense. It needs special behavior on
            line-height, but we need this. It's fairly
            straight-forward and can be computed value
  Florian: If the line height in reality is stepped up you want the
           lh to be doing the same or otherwise it will not be

  myles: If you make it work like em it's good.
  fantasai: It's similar. Slightly more complex, but the same

  Florian: If we do that the only question is how to we break the
           cycle when we us lh in line-height-step. You do value on
           parent for pre-adjust value
  fantasai: Value before adjusting. Parent doesn't make sense. It's
  Florian: I can sort of imagine both, but I prefer the same.
  Florian: Other direction is I want my line step height to be 2lh.
           That doesn't sound insane.
  fantasai: Then why aren't you adjusting the lh property. Your
            target line height is 10px, but you're setting
            line-height-step to 20px...that's weird.
  <tantek> leaning towards what fantasai is saying, I'd need to see
           the use-case that would need line-step-height to be 2lh.
  Florian: Fair enough. I say same as you.

  Florian: Is koji still around?
  Florian: Are you okay with this?
  koji: I think so. I'm not sure I fully understand.
  koji: Do you think that only for line-height and line-height-step...
         I guess it's helpful to write a proposal.
  <fantasai> proposal is lh includes calculation of line-height-step
  <fantasai> and if lh is used in line-height-step property, it
             refers to unadjusted line-height property
  Florian: All fonts related units need some exceptions. Other then
           that there's nothing special.
  koji: If it's like em I'm probably fine.
  Florian: Concept is the same. Details will need tweaks.
  koji: I think it's fine until there's more details to discuss.
  Florian: I feel good enough to leave it to editors, but if you
           want a PR first that's fine.
  koji: Okay. That's good.

  Rossen: Who will have the proposed text?
  fantasai: TabAtkins or I will fix it.
  Florian: Alright. If I find time I can make the PR.
  Rossen: Resolve now or after koji reviews?
  fantasai: Up to koji.
  koji: Whichever is fine.
  Rossen: Let's resolve on this one.
  Rossen: I mean when we have proposed text.
  Rossen: We have the 3 CSS alignment issues fantasai pointed out.
          Do you have an order?

CSS Alignment issues

Allowing fallback alignments without breaking shorthands

  <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1002
  fantasai: First is the issue on allowing fallback alignment.
  fantasai: We have several types like space-between which don't
            make sense unless you have more than one item.
  fantasai: Since they have syntax for fallback it has been
            problematic. We've had proposals, but TabAtkins and I
            were thinking let's drop for this level and reduce the
            number of stuff in the spec. No fallback alignments for
            now, we'll add them fairly quickly in L4.
  fremy: Did we not resolve on that last time?
  fantasai: Let me see.
  Rossen: If we did, I don't believe it was under that issue.
  [minutes searching]
  fremy: I'm fine with re-resolving.
  Rossen: Let's assume we didn't.

  Rossen: Any other comments?
  Rossen: TabAtkins I see you commented where you proposed commas to
          separate fallback.
  TabAtkins: Yeah, but I'd rather drop for now. We can always
             address it in the future.
  TabAtkins: Push to level 4. My suggestion was compatible with drop
             for now.
  Rossen: Let's push it to level 4. Objections?

  RESOLVED: Push fallback alignments to L4.

Fix order of `unsafe`/`safe` keyword wrt alignment keyword?

  <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1001
  Rossen: Unsafe/safe keywords
  fantasai: They can be either order, but introduced an ambiguity
            when we did shorthands. To resolve the ambiguity we
            propose to fix the order and require safe or unsafe to
            be before the alignment it modifies.
  fantasai: Alternate proposals are welcome.
  Rossen: Any alternate proposals?
  Rossen: Proposal doesn't sound crazy. From an implementor PoV it's
          straight forward to handle.
  Rossen: I don't see a big reason why not to go with the proposed
  Rossen: Any comments?

  RESOLVED: safe & unsafe keywords ordered before alignment keywords.

  Rossen: Last is about last baseline alignment for scrollable boxes.
  fantasai: This is a longer discussion. We might want that at the
            F2F. I'll push this to that agenda.
  Rossen: Yeah, this needs a whiteboard.

 Drop justify-content: <baseline-position>

  <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1184
  fantasai: There's a quick one. I realized we have values that
            don't do anything.
  fantasai: Assuming that's correct I'd like to drop them.
  Rossen: I thought we resolved in the past. We were discussing in
          grid and later resolved on conference calls to drop.
  fantasai: We dropped the concept. The writing mode will always be
            fixed for align and justify content so justify-self will
            have baseline, but justify-content will never apply
  fantasai: I think that's how it works. If anyone has a case I'd be
            happy to reconsider, but I just noticed that.
  Rossen: Makes sense to me.
  <astearns> makes sense to me
  <Florian> I cannot think of a case where it would apply
  Rossen: I see general consensus around dropping it. Objections to
          dropping justify-content: baseline since it only applies
          in block axis?

  RESOLVED: Drop justify-content: baseline

  Rossen: And that's the end of those issue and the top of the hour.
  TabAtkins: Can we try and do my topic that fill & stroke should be
  fantasai: We resolved that.
  fantasai: I'll get you the minutes.
  Rossen: Yeah, and fantasai asked plh for the short name change.
  <fantasai> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2017Mar/0088.html
  <fantasai> minutes^
  TabAtkins: Okay. Cool. Alright.

  Rossen: Thanks everyone for calling.
  Rossen: Safe travels to those flying to Tokyo!

Received on Thursday, 13 April 2017 00:33:38 UTC