W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2017

[CSSWG] Minutes Telecon 2017-11-22 [css-animations] [css-transitions] [css-color-3] [css-counter-styles] [css-grid] [css-align] [css-multicol]

From: Dael Jackson <daelcss@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 19:54:08 -0500
Message-ID: <CADhPm3ucBi13cbkhgWMWJk7AqKtM9LNaX+vzv8FHu7JTihsZ_w@mail.gmail.com>
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.
=========================================


Spec Rec Next Steps
-------------------

  - The group was reminded of the upcoming end of year publication
      deadline.
  - tantek announced that he's making progress on the scrollbars ED
      and hopes to ask for FPWD in a few weeks.

Transitions
-----------

  - RESOLVED: Add birtles as an editor for Transitions.
  - RESOLVED: Publish a new WD of Transitions.

Animations
----------

  - RESOLVED: Publish a new WD of Animations.

Color L3
--------

  - RESOLVED: Publish new CR of Color L3

Counter Styles
--------------

  - RESOLVED: Publish updated CR once there are tests linked for each
              non-editorial change.

Grid
----

  - RESOLVED: When the track depends on the size of its contents and
              the item depends on the size of the track it cannot be
              baseline aligned.
  - RESOLVED: Accept the proposed change in the last comment of
              https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1039 ("do an
              early collection of baseline-aligned things, calculate
              how tall they are and baseline align them, then add
              "shims" to their margin to maintain this alignment thru
              the intrinsic sizing calc.")
  - The authors plan to request publication for Grid this year and the
      group requested that tests for any changes resolved today be
      included at time of request.

CSS Multicol
------------

  - RESOLVED: Use 'multicolumn container' in the draft

Scheduling
----------

  - There will not be a call on 27 Dec. A doodle will be set up to see
      if people are available for a call on 20 Dec and 3 Jan.

===== FULL MINUTES BELOW ======

Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2017Nov/0015.html

Present:
  Rachel Andrew
  Rossen Atanassov
  Tab Atkins
  David Baron
  Tantek Çelik
  Dave Cramer
  Alex Critchfield
  Benjamin De Cock
  Elika Etemad
  Tony Graham
  Dael Jackson
  Chris Lilley
  Peter Linss
  Thierry Michel
  Anton Prowse
  Manuel Rego
  Melanie Richards
  Alan Stearns
  Lea Verou
  Eric Willigers

Regrets:
  Simon Fraser
  Michael Miller
  Florian Rivoal
  Jen Simmons

Scribe: dael


Publication
===========

  astearns: Let's get started.
  astearns: Anything extra to add to the agenda?
  tantek: There is a publication moratorium in less then a month.
  tantek: Given it takes time to publish, a longer heads up is better.
  tantek: I think it's mid-Dec.
  astearns: Chris do you have the actual dates?
  Chris: Sure, let me get that.
  <Chris> -----------
  <Chris> End of Year
  <Chris> -----------
  <Chris> December 13, 1200Z: Deadline for publication requests before
          moratorium
  <Chris> December 14: Last publications before moratorium
  <Chris> December 18 - January 1: No publications
  <Chris> January 4, 2018: Publications resume
  tantek: And you need to request at least 24hr before the
          Tuesday-Thursday before the moratorium.
  Chris: And if it's a transition request you need to count before
         that.
  tantek: We call things publication that are transitions.
  Chris: Right, and that's the point.
  tantek: Even CR to CR.
  Chris: Yes.

Spec Rec Next Steps
===================

  astearns: A couple items in the agenda are that progress. Any
            additional updates?
  Chris: I don't
  tantek: I've made some progress on scrollbars ED. It's not quite
          ready, but I hope to have it in the next couple weeks based
          on research on minimal color controls. I'm hoping for FPWD
          done soon if people want to comment or file issues. I filed
          a bunch to capture what people said at the F2F.
  astearns: Thanks.
  astearns: Anything else on general progress?

Animations and Transitions
==========================

  astearns: I heard no objections to adding birtles as an editor.

  RESOLVED: Add birtles as an editor for Transitions.

  astearns: These are both regular WD. They're not quite CR ready.

  <Chris> and animations, right?
  astearns: Chris I believe he already is.
  tantek: Do we need a resolution?
  astearns: It's minuted as resolved, but I declared him editor.

  astearns: For animations, would anyone object to a new WD?

  RESOLVED: Publish a new WD of Animations.

  astearns: Birtles will handle that.

  astearns: New WD of transitions. Objections?

  RESOLVED: Publish a new WD of Transitions.

  astearns: Again birtles will handle that.

  fantasai: Concern on publications. I think they were previously
            joint SVG & CSS. It seems like echinda is choking on that.
  dbaron: I don't think they were.
  fantasai: Okay.
  astearns: They are in our repo, not FXTF.
  Chris: That should be fine then.
  dbaron: You want to look at the top of the TR draft for WG
          responsible.
  astearns: And is it just a case of taking FXTF drafts we want to
            publish and making them a single responsibility?
  Chris: They are, but the auto publish system doesn't have checks
         bright enough to know that's okay.
  astearns: We can work on that next time we do a fxtf draft.

New CR for Color L3
===================

  <Chris> Changes section for Color 3 (in old .src.html format)
          https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/blob/master/css-color-3/Overview.src.html#L1872
  <astearns> changes section:
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/blob/master/css-color-3/Overview.src.html#L1872

  astearns: Changes are linked above.
  Chris: Color 3 uses the old dot source format. The make file isn't
         auto generated. I have updated it in GH with a correct
         changes. I have a doc staged assuming we publish next
         Thursday with pub rules checked. I can point you to the line
         in the source with the changes section.
  Chris: Those 4 changes are the same as the published rec's errata.
  Chris: One is a technical change, but no new features.
  Chris: It already met CR exit criteria, but once it's at CR with
         patent there is required time to sit in CR and then it goes
         to edited rec.
  Chris: So I started prep the transition request, doc is staged and
         ready.
  Chris: tantek does that answer your question?
  <fantasai> it answers my question :)
  <fantasai> that didn't ask it yet
  tantek: Yeah. I just looked at the changes section. That looks
          pretty good.

  tantek: For changes in earlier drafts, do we need that anymore?
  Chris: I was wondering. I left it for people who were going to look
         at the diff.
  tantek: That was previous to rec, right?
  Chris: Yes.
  tantek: We can drop in my opinion?
  Chris: Others?
  tantek: Since you linked the dated version they can click through.
  dbaron: You could also point to the rec's changes section from that
          changes section
  Chris: That's a good idea. I'll do that.

  astearns: Any other comments?
  astearns: Objections?
  <fantasai> all sounds good to me

  RESOLVED: Publish new CR of Color L3

  astearns: Thanks Chris for the work.

New CR for counter styles
=========================

  astearns: Is TabAtkins on?
  fantasai: I can probably go over it.
  fantasai: Basically we updated...we folded in tpac resolutions,
            updated DoC & changes section.
  <fantasai> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-counter-styles/issues-cr-20150611
  fantasai: Doc^
  fantasai: Majority of changes are editorial. Ones that aren't have
            resolutions.

  * tantek reviews
  Chris: They all look good to me.
  astearns: Any other comments?
  astearns: Pausing for reading.
  tantek: DoC looks good. Changes section?
  <fantasai> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-counter-styles/#changes-jun-2015
  fantasai: ^

  Chris: fantasai I wanted to check...there's required to be an impl
         status statement. I think last time this was published it
         pointed to i18n tests which is weird.
  fantasai: I'm guessing they have a status of what tests pass.
  Chris: All of those are WPTs. We can use the normal report style.
  <Chris> https://www.w3.org/International/tests/repo/results/predefined-counter-styles
  Chris: Last draft was ^
  Chris: I suggest updating that.
  fantasai: I'm okay either way. i18n WG has a nice summary.
  Chris: We can do both. Before when it was published it wasn't in our
         system.
  fantasai: Right. Either way I think it's fine. Whatever you decide.
  Chris: I was asking you to decide.

  tantek: Are there tests?
  fantasai: Yes. I think Mozilla has a bunch.
  tantek: For the changes since previous CR? They seem all testable.
  fantasai: I don't think there are.
  <Chris> https://test.csswg.org/harness/results/css-counter-styles-3_dev/grouped/
  <Chris> https://test.csswg.org/harness/suite/css-counter-styles-3_dev/
  Chris: There's the results for the whole thing^
  tantek: So if I impl...if I look at changes I'd say what do I impl
          and then I'd look to know how to test.
  Chris: You make a good point. We resolved for CR+ we have to link to
         tests.
  astearns: Should we do that for this CR and then resolve to
            republish ones we have IDed or created tests?
  tantek: That's my preference if I was impl.
  dbaron: Gecko has a bunch of tests we could move into the directory,
          but they have no meta data or descriptions.
  fantasai: I can do that.
  dbaron: I asked xidorn to do it.
  fantasai: That would be better.
  tantek: I think that's good. I'd like one test per change.
  fantasai: We can do that. Since we have the deadline, can we resolve
            to do CR as soon as the editors add links to tests from
            changes section.
  astearns: Hearing no objections to the text, but we do want tests...

  RESOLVED: Publish updated CR once there are tests linked for each
            non-editorial change.

  <gsnedders> dbaron, fantasai, xidorn: wrt counter-styles tests,
              there's a PR containing all the tests from
              mozilla-central that I posted while at TPAC
  <dbaron> gsnedders, ah, https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/8150
  <xidorn> gsnedders: that's all? I... thought we have more...
  <dbaron> gsnedders, no, I was thinking of a different set of tests
  <gsnedders> xidorn: all from that directory, excluding a couple of
              files that are unspec'd behaviour IIRC
  <dbaron> gsnedders: there's a different directory, layout/reftests/
           counter-style/
  <gsnedders> dbaron: ah, ok, I didn't know what you were referring to
              earlier :)

CSS UI 4
========

Change the pointer cursor to indicate any interactive element
-------------------------------------------------------------

  astearns: florian sent regrets. Can anyone take this or should we
            postpone?
  tantek: Let me look quickly.
  tantek: At first blush I'm resistant to change.
  tantek: I'll defer to when florian is back.
  astearns: Can you add a comment in GH with your reservations?
  tantek: Sure

CSS Grid
========

How items with synthesized baseline affect the size of intrinsic
    tracks
----------------------------------------------------------------
  github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1365

  fantasai: We looked through this issue which is a problem with the
            way baseline sizing has a loop with things that depend on
            size of row. You can see in example we size all the items
            and you can see we have a circle for analysis.
  fantasai: Our current proposal is to detect when we're in this case
            and say you don't get baseline-alignment.
  TabAtkins: This case being anything that depends on size of track
             cannot be baseline aligned.
  TabAtkins: Image with height 100% or orthogonal flow.
  fantasai: Anything that depends on size of the track when track is
            sized based on its contents.
  fantasai: We're happy to consider other solutions, but we can't
            figure out a reason why you'd do this.
  TabAtkins: Igalia folk are happy with this resolution.

  Rossen: Have you looked at what current impl do?
  Rossen: I just ran the code sample in the issue and there seems to
          be mild interop.
  Rossen: This would probably mean a change for FF and Edge.
  fantasai: Firefox looks like it wouldn't change.
  fantasai: Firefox isn't baseline aligning which would mean no change
            in this case.
  Rossen: Maybe I got your point backwards.
  Rossen: This would be change for Chrome, not Firefox or Edge
  TabAtkins: In so far that you don't baseline align at all yet, yeah
             it's no change.
  TabAtkins: Chrome does require change, but igalia folk are happy so
             we're fine to change.

  rego: We were looking. We wanted to investigate in the next weeks,
        but we think we're fine. Firefox doesn't baseline align
        orthogonal so it's not change.
  Rossen: We do currently do that.
  Rossen: Looking at the 3 impl side by side, I see what you mean.
          Firefox basically doesn't do it. We do an okay job in the
          test case from the issue.
  TabAtkins: If you're doing an okay job, you're not following spec.
  Rossen: Yeah. By okay job I mean slightly better then Chrome, we fit
          all the items in the blue section, but alignment and track
          sizes are pretty much the same.
  Rossen: Yeah, Firefox doesn't do it.
  Rossen: You're saying you guys are willing to change?
  TabAtkins: Yeah. Manuel brought up the issue.

  astearns: So we could resolve on this and as Edge continues to impl
            if you have something better propose it?
  Rossen: Our impl is shipping. We're not changing anything but it's
          rolling out with that behavior. Which means you'll have two
          impl matching in this case, regardless of following spec.
  TabAtkins: Okay. We're willing to change because the behavior is
             objectively bad. No one would want the behavior currently
             described in the spec.
  Rossen: Okay. I'm okay with the issue.

  TabAtkins: When the track depends on the size of its contents and
             the item depends on the size of the track it cannot be
             baseline aligned.
  Rossen: I think I spent two hours chatting with fantasai on this at
          the F2F in Paris and, at the time, we went back and forth
          and I think we were on the same page.
  fantasai: I think that was the general case. This is a particular
            case with a cyclic dependency.
  Rossen: I'm not gonna object, but I'm pretty sure this won't be the
          last time we discuss.
  fantasai: I hope someone has a solution that gets is better results
            if we discuss again.
  <fantasai> -> I hope if we discuss again, it's only because someone
             has found a better solution whose results don't look
             terrible

  astearns: Proposed is: When the track depends on the size of its
            contents and the item depends on the size of the track it
            cannot be baseline aligned.
  astearns: Objections?

  RESOLVED: When the track depends on the size of its contents and the
            item depends on the size of the track it cannot be
            baseline aligned.

Baseline self-alignment may affect the intrinsic size contribution
    of the alignment subject
------------------------------------------------------------------
  github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1039

  astearns: Who wants this?
  TabAtkins: This is the more general case of which the last was a
             particular case. If a track depends on size of content
             and content is baseline aligned, then baseline alignment
             needs to depend on size of track.
  TabAtkins: If you write algorithm naively you end up circular.
  TabAtkins: We've revised this a few times and hit on this approach.
             It's a small spec edit that does what we want as far as
             we can tell. Details are toward the end and there are
             commits in the spec.
  <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1039#issuecomment-337327396
             summarizes approach
  <fantasai> changes at
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/commit/36224722dc40432700709d1267b552b738ee3b49
  TabAtkins: We collect all the baseline aligned items first, see
             height and how they will baseline align. Then we add
             shims to them, basically margins, so if you naively align
             it would be correct. Then we do baseline align.
  TabAtkins: Javier says [quotes something positive]

  astearns: At first blush this seems reasonable to me. I'm happy to
            make this change.
  TabAtkins: Yeah, it wasn't something where coming from nothing you'd
             get it right. But I think we're good for now. We're open
             to changes to it. We just think we finally got it right.
  astearns: Comments?

  astearns: I'm assuming there's not any current interop?
  TabAtkins: I believe so. It should be just doing what you expect it
             to do, but described currently instead of extra layout
             passes
  astearns: Objections to this change?

  RESOLVED: Accept the proposed change in the last comment of
            https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1039

CSS Multicol
============

Referring to the multicol element / container
---------------------------------------------
  github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1965

  rachelandrew: This is...it's possible it doesn't need a resolution.
                When we discussed at the F2F fantasai noted there's
                confusion as to what we call the multicol element. I'm
                proposing we call it the multicol container which
                matches flexbox and grid.
  rachelandrew: I wanted to check if there are problems.
  fantasai: I think it's a necessary change. It's not an element, it's
            a box.
  rachelandrew: Cool. If people are happy, I'm working through the
                spec so this seemed the right time.

  astearns: Comments or concerns?
  Rossen: Sounds like a good change.
  astearns: Objections to using multicolumn container in the draft?
  <dauwhe> +1
  <tantek> +1

  RESOLVED: Use multicolumn container in the draft

CSS Grid
========

Publication
-----------

  <fantasai> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-grid-1/issues-cr-2016
  fantasai: DoC is here^
  fantasai: We just closed 2 of the last 4 open issues. One is
            editorial- adding an example. The other is blocked on
            Rossen.
  Rossen: It's on my backlog.
  fantasai: TabAtkins and I would like to publish an update soon. We
            need to fold in today's resolutions. Our goal would be CR
            transition request to publish this year.
  <tantek> an updated CR right?
  fantasai: Heads up to the WG in general. I'd like to resolve to move
            grid to CR next Wednesday. So Rossen you have a deadline.
  <Chris> yay
  Rossen: I can't promise for next week. But I will try. Following
          week is what it might have to be.
  Rossen: But timeboxing to publish this year sounds absolutely right.
          I will try to push and have this surface internally asap.
  <tantek> agreed, would be great to get a Grid CR by EOY!

  fantasai: I don't think we'll get to have tests for everything for
            this round. Next will be more plausible.
  Rossen: I'm highly hoping the changes we just accepted for baseline
          alignment will come with tests because those are non-obvious.
  fantasai: I'm happy to add tests, but it will take a long time to
            write them. Unless you want to publish end of Jan we have
            to skip.
  astearns: For the things we just resolved on, they need tests. I'll
            hold until they have tests.
  Rossen: There are a bunch of tests inside the issues. I think we can
          re-purpose those and go from there.
  fantasai: I'll work on tests next week then.
  tantek: I thought there were tests, but not linked.
  fantasai: I don't know. We don't have tests for what we just
            resolved.
  astearns: And igalia people will be doing impl work so perhaps they
            could contribute tests.
  rego: For the last changes in the spec we always contribute tests so
        we'll keep doing the same.
  <tantek> +1 on holding updated Grid CR until we've linked to the
           tests for changes since previous CR

  astearns: Anything else on grid fantasai?
  fantasai: That's it. Just keep pressuring Rossen ^-^
  <Rossen> pressure felt! :)

  astearns: Anything else for the call?
  tantek: Ideas for schedule for the rest of the year of telecon?
  tantek: Any known no-telecon days?
  astearns: I have not looked. I'd assume end of Dec. we will not.
            Pretty sure not 27 Dec. I don't know the week before or
            after. Rossen do you have an idea?
  Rossen: Haven't thought about it, but 27th being out makes sense.
  Rossen: Whatever WG wants we can go with.
  Rossen: Last year I think we did a couple of weeks. First was right
          before new year and second was right after.
  Rossen: We can do same.
  TabAtkins: We can put up a doodle to get availability on before and
             after 27th.
  Rossen: Yeah
  astearns: Sounds good.
  astearns: Anything else?

  astearns: Everyone gets 10 minutes back. Thanks everyone and talk to
            you next week.
  <Rossen> ...and happy Thanksgiving to those observing it :)
Received on Thursday, 23 November 2017 00:55:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 23 November 2017 00:55:23 UTC