- From: Dael Jackson <daelcss@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 20:44:28 -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.
=========================================
Values & Units
--------------
- astearns created a bunch of tests for clamping behavior and
requested review before TPAC:
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/434#issuecomment-341267463
CSS UI 3
--------
- RESOLVED: Publish an updated CR of CSS UI 3.
Text Decoration 3
-----------------
- Text Decoration 3 should be ready for CR as soon as
internationalization finishes their review.
CSS Cascade
-----------
- RESOLVED: Remove this (Override Declarations) from both levels of
CSS Cascade and replacing the reference with a note.
Sizing
-----
- RESOLVED: Take 'stretch' and 'fit-content' to level 4 and drop a
note in level 3 noting where they went and pointing to
next level.
- The github issue (https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1913)
to restrict 'stretch' and 'fit-content' to width/height and
max-* (excluding min-*) didn't have any strong opinions.
Individuals were encouraged to review and see if they can think
of a use case before TPAC.
===== FULL MINUTES BELOW ======
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2017Nov/0000.html
Present:
Rachel Andrew
David Baron
Tantek Çelik
Elika Etemad
Dael Jackson
Dean Jackson
Tomoya Kimura
Myles Maxfield
Michael Miller
François Remy
Melanie Richards
Florian Rivoal
Alan Stearns
Regrets:
Tab Atkins
Dave Cramer
Benjamin De Cock
Tony Graham
Thierry Michel
Naina Raisinghani
Shane Stephens
Sergio Villar Senin
Greg Whitworth
Eric Willigers
Scribe: dael
Agenda Setting & Announcements
==============================
astearns: I have 5 minutes after. We can start and get through what
we can.
astearns: Any extra items?
florian: I have a small one. Nothing extra to discuss, but something
remind people.
florian: I asked people a while back to review my line-height
testing. I'm not seeing anything in github. Discussion will
be better if people look.
astearns: Is it on TPAC agenda?
florian: I'll make sure it is.
<florian> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1796
<florian> (and the issues linked from that one)
dino: I wanted to let people know we update our blog post about what
was called constant() and now called env() and the beta OSs
that shipped yesterday support that.
<fantasai> \^_^/
dino: Our shipping impl is now in line with the group decision.
astearns: Thanks for that quick change.
Spec Rec Progress
=================
Values & Units
--------------
astearns: I needed to make some tests for clamping at used value
time for V&U. I finally got to that today.
<astearns> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/434#issuecomment-341267463
astearns: I posted my tests here ^
astearns: I think this is something we should review at TPAC to give
people time to take a look and see if there's something
wrong with my tests.
astearns: Anything else to volunteer?
CSS UI 3
--------
florian: CSS UI we resolved to try and go to PR. Chris and I reached
out to PLH to see if we could do PR, he thinks not due to
changes and we should do a short CR loop.
<tantek> wow what were the normative changes?
florian: Normative changes were on cursor: auto which added that you
should look like text over selectable as well as editable
text. Minor but normative.
<tantek> but it was non-substantial because it was done to match
impls
<tantek> that makes no sense, that category of normative change is
supposed to be ok from CR->PR
<tantek> frustrating
florian: The other normative seemed like the kind that wouldn't
block, but that's the one that would be trouble. Normally
that's Ralph's call, but PLH doesn't believe Ralph would
rule differently.
florian: I'd rather go along with the process then try and argue. I
would rather try and change process later.
<tantek> Florian can you add me on any email thread on this?
<tantek> This is inconsistently enforced
<tantek> No this is not part of the process formally
<tantek> This is plh being more nitpicky than he should
<tantek> and inconsistently with other CR->PR transitions
astearns: tantek I'll forward the email thread.
fantasai: What's the writing modes status?
astearns: Before that, shall we resolve on publishing updated CR of
CSS UI?
astearns: Objections?
RESOLVED: Publish an updated CR of CSS UI.
<tantek> updated CR would add 4 weeks right?
<florian> tantek: yes, +4 weeks
<tantek> and then we may run into publication bans
<tantek> ugh
<gsnedders> tantek: if there's a new exclusion period, yes
Writing Modes
-------------
astearns: Writing modes.
astearns: Who took on the publishing tasks?
fantasai: No idea.
astearns: Okay. I'm not sure either. I'll follow up on that.
<fantasai> https://drafts.csswg.org/Transitions
fantasai: Status on transitions page says working on how to move at
risk features, but the edits were done a while ago. CR
doesn't need tests, so that shouldn't be holding it up.
astearns: I'll follow up this week and we can revisit at TPAC.
astearns: Anything more on spec progress?
Text Decoration 3
-----------------
<fantasai> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013
fantasai: I have DoC for CSS 3 text decoration mostly complete. I'm
waiting on i18n to respond. Everything has been edited in.
fantasai: There's one issue where I don't know what to do.
astearns: Do you expect to get more than an okay from i18n?
fantasai: I don't know. I'll track Richard down next week.
astearns: And does the one remaining issue need to go on TPAC agenda?
fantasai: 16 requires i18n to say they want a change. The other one
had concerns raised but nothing actionable.
astearns: And the one where you don't know what to do?
fantasai: For 16. There was a discussion on it on the mailing list
and I asked if they wanted the issue re-opened and I
haven't gotten a response.
astearns: So it's waiting on feedback.
fantasai: Yes, unless anyone knows a lot about emphasis marks they
can comment.
astearns: Given we have a small number of people on the call, does
anyone feel there are items on the agenda that should
wait? Or are there some we can get through?
CSS Cascade
===========
Are 'Override declarations' still a thing?
------------------------------------------
github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1385
fremy: From the look I took it's not referenced by CSS. I think it's
fine to drop, but I don't know if somebody has a strong
opinion. Not easy without enough people on the call.
dbaron: I think we (Gecko) did remove the override stylesheet API if
we had it.
astearns: Let's leave it as that. We have two options and we'll come
back when there's more people.
fremy: Or we can resolve and if someone disagrees we re-open.
fremy: In the interest of progress.
astearns: That's fair. I would have liked to see an opinion from Tab
with the issue.
fantasai: Tab and I don't have an opinion. We discussed last week.
astearns: Looking at the issue the last comment suggests to make a
note in last level of cascade spec that we can simplify
and have a note.
fantasai: I'm happy to take edits to remove but we can add a note
pointing to it that there was a thing that no one
implements.
astearns: This is only next level of CSS cascade?
fantasai: Both. If the feature doesn't exist, it doesn't exist
anywhere.
fantasai: Both are in CR anyways.
astearns: Objections to removing this from both levels of CSS
cascade and replacing the reference with a note?
RESOLVED: Remove this from both levels of CSS cascade and replacing
the reference with a note.
astearns: Thanks for taking on these edits fantasai
CSSOM
=====
Clarify behavior of window.getComputedStyle on detached subtrees,
and the definition of "the root element"'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1548
fremy: I just took a look at the rest of the agenda and I don't
think we can resolve on anything except maybe 5. They're not
editorial. It would be weird to resolve without someone from
chrome team.
dbaron: One comment on this issue. The issue so far is a
conversation between multiple Gecko people. It would be nice
for another impl to look.
fremy: Point taken. I will.
astearns: Let's get a few more browsers commenting before we take
this on again.
Sizing
======
Define which replaced elements are affected by width: % rule zeroing
min-content
--------------------------------------------------------------------
github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1889
<fantasai> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-sizing-3/#min-content-zero
fantasai: We added an appendix that lists the elements that should
be 0ed out. We put all of dbaron's comment in the issue.
We're asking for review
fantasai: Please let me know if there's something to add or remove.
We'll close once there has been review and dbaron has
given a yes.
astearns: dbaron have you looked?
dbaron: I haven't.
<fantasai> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-sizing-3/#intrinsic-contribution
fantasai: Behavior is in the 2nd paragraph of section 4.2
astearns: Sounds like we need to call for review of this change.
Then we can resolve to close.
astearns: It's a pretty minor change.
astearns: Anything else on this?
Defer 'stretch' and 'fit-content' keywords to level 4
-----------------------------------------------------
github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1912
fantasai: TabAtkins and I noticed the majority of open issues or
things we need to add is related to 'stretch'. The rest
have a consistent definition, have been or have been
discussed being shipped.
fantasai: Unless someone has a different opinion we'd like to drop
these two properties and then take the spec to CR once
people have gotten a chance to check.
fremy: Reasonable.
dbaron: Should we add a note where they were saying they were
dropped?
fantasai: I can do that.
astearns: Objections to taking stretch and fit-content to level 4
and dropping a note noting where they went
<dbaron> ... and pointing to the next level
RESOLVED: Take 'stretch' and 'fit-content' to level 4 and dropping a
note noting where they went and pointing to next level.
fantasai: [missed] The one with the argument relies on min-content
and max-content to it doesn't depend ong stretch
<dbaron> I think [missed] was fantasai proposing that the
fit-content() function stays in this level, but the
fit-content keyword moves to the next level
astearns: Did anyone implement fit-content?
fantasai: I'm not sure, but I think the spec needs more work. My
plan for L4 fwiw is to have stretch, fit-content, contain
keyword (because we wanted to work on it with stretch),
and add an aspect ratio feature.
fantasai: That's the plan for L4 and I think TabAtkins and I can
draft that pretty easily.
astearns: I was just wondering if we were trying to move sizing 3 to
CR if fit-content would need to move for impl status. But
that can happen when we get to next publishing stage.
Restrict 'stretch' and 'fit-content' to width/height and max-*
--------------------------------------------------------------
github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1913
fantasai: TabAtkins and I couldn't figure out a good use case for
using them as a min width or height. We were suggesting to
drop from min.
fantasai: I can't think of a single reason you want to do it so it's
not worth effort on testing and impl.
astearns: This is L3 and L4 because you want to restrict fit-content
function?
fantasai: Yes, I think so.
dbaron: I find it weird because it's about exposing low level
concepts. Even if I can't come up with a use case off the
top of my head it doesn't seem implausible. It's useful to
have primitive concepts exposed when those concepts exist.
fantasai: Fair.
fantasai: I don't have a strong opinion.
astearns: I'm wondering if there is a case where you're using custom
properties that are set to one of these things and it
would make sense to use that custom property value for a
set of regular min and max prop. I'm not coming up with an
actual case though.
astearns: dbaron would you rather have them put back in? Or are you
okay with then off for now until someone comes up with a
reason.
dbaron: I'd rather put back in, but I don't feel that strongly.
fantasai: Anyone else have an opinion?
fremy: I can't find a use case either, but I don't have a strong
opinion. I wouldn't want either remove or added. Either is
fine. I can understand both points.
astearns: What about if we leave this for a week and bring it up at
TPAC with more people and more thought for possible use
cases? Or just some stronger arguments for consistency.
astearns: All I'm hearing is a lot of I'm not feeling strongly about
this.
astearns: Is this okay to leave for now fantasai?
fantasai: No problem.
astearns: Anything else to bring up on the call?
astearns: For those coming to TPAC travel safe. We'll see you next
week.
<tantek> thanks!
Received on Thursday, 2 November 2017 00:45:22 UTC