W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2018

[CSSWG] Minutes Telecon 2018-03-07 [css-color-3] [css-fonts-3] [typed-om] [css-2018] [css-sizing] [css-backgrounds] [css-text-decor] [css3] [css-counter-styles] [css-images-4]

From: Dael Jackson <daelcss@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 05:55:08 -0500
Message-ID: <CADhPm3tAmYUmqr7kj812DHXsZ2YZibg8aDUf=4Jd=Fm7UkDpcw@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.
=========================================


TYPO Conference
---------------

  - Anyone interested in speaking should reach out to Rossen or reply
      to the private thread.

CSS Color 3
-----------

  - RESOLVED: Request a transition to PR for CSS Color 3

CSS Fonts 3
-----------

  - RESOLVED: Publish updated CR of Fonts L3

CSS Typed OM
------------

  - TabAtkins will edit in his proposal for Houdini issue #716 (Trim
      CSSResourceValue and subclasses to opaque objects for this
      level, punt rest to level 2)

CSS Snapshot 2018
-----------------

  - The group approved the pull request in Issue #2281. Issue #2388
      (List features cleared for shipping) will still need to be
      resolved before publishing the snapshot.

CSS Sizing
----------

  - RESOLVED: Accept the edit in
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1132#issuecomment-363623845
              with a clarification (for what counts as containing a
              percentage) and a hyperlinked term (as to what is a
              sizing property).

Backgrounds & Borders 3
-----------------------

  - dbaron reviewed the Mozilla input tests with issues and filed an
      issue to get help fixing the error they all had.
  - There are still other tests that need to be reviewed.

Text Decoration
---------------

  - RESOLVED: Change the default behavior for emphasis marks in the
              current level of text decoration spec.

Backgrounds & Borders 4
-----------------------

  - Issue #2114 (Border width rounding clarification) requires more
      testing to discern if there is a common behavior that can be
      standardized around.

CSS Counter Styles
------------------

  - liam will file a bug on webkit to support setting list style to a
      fixed string. Either he or franremy will add the same to
      Microsoft's user voice.

CSS Images 4
------------

  - RESOLVED: Clear conic-gradient() for shipping

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

Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2018Mar/0016.html

Present:
  Rachel Andrew
  Rossen Atanassov
  Tab Atkins
  David Baron
  Garrett Berg
  Tantek Çelik
  Alex Critchfield
  Elika Etemad
  Dael Jackson
  Dean Jackson
  Chris Lilley
  Peter Linss
  Myles Maxfield
  Xidorn Quan
  Liam Quin
  François Remy
  Florian Rivoal
  Alan Stearns
  Shane Stephens
  Eric Willigers

Regrets:
  Angelo Cano
  Benjamin De Cock
  Manuel Rego Casasnovas
  Melanie Richards
  Greg Whitworth

Scribe: dael

TYPO Conference
===============

  astearns: I think we should start.
  astearns: Does anyone have any extra items to add today?
  Rossen: I want to add one.
  Rossen: I wanted to draw attention to the TYPO conference CSSWG
          presentation. I don't think we've had much engagement on the
          mailing list. I attempted to provoke conversation last week
          there. I'd like to discussion options today.
  [unminuted people trying to decide who can talk]
  Rossen: Please reach out to me if you're at all interested even if
          you're not sure. The conference is in a month from now so it
          would be bad to have nothing prepared.
  <fantasai> I thought I already said I wanted to present?
  astearns: fantasai mentions on IRC she's interested. There's at
            least 3 maybes. If you 3 could talk and if you do this on
            the private list you can maybe get more people.
  Rossen: Perfect.
  <Chris> I can also do a cut-down portion of my webfonts talk as a
          fallback if we have nothing better
  Chris: I've got a web fonts talk I can cut from. It's prob better
         from browser vendors then me, but as a fallback.
  <leaverou> I can give my variables talk if needed
  Rossen: I've achieved what I want. Let's re-engage on the private
          list.
  <fantasai> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2018JanMar/0023.html

CSS Color 3
===========

Transition back to PR
---------------------

  Chris: Published as a CR in Dec. Since we've had almost nothing in
         comments. One was a stray semi-colon. So we need a resolution
         to do a PR.
  astearns: There was one substantive change with a passing test case.
  Chris: Yes, it passes exit criteria.
  <tantek> +1
  astearns: Objections to requesting a transition to PR for CSS
            Color 3?

  RESOLVED: Request a transition to PR for CSS Color 3

Writing Modes
=============

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

  Rossen: While we're on the topic, can I ask the status of writing
          modes which was supposed to rec some time ago?
  astearns: Good question. I think what we're stuck on is getting an
            updated test result. I believe liam has pledged to look
            soon so we may want to wait on liam
  liam: Yes, I'll be looking over the next week.
  Rossen: Thank you liam. We were so close to rec and then there were
          some minor issues and we're spiraling back from our progress.
  florian: I don't know if fantasai is on the phone. There were edits
           and tests to write based on a recent decision. She and I
           made them and she'll be in Tokyo with koji to look at it.
           liam's effort with theirs will be the final push.
  astearns: Let's revisit next week.

CSS Fonts 3
===========

Review disposition of comments, publish updated CR
--------------------------------------------------
  <Chris> https://drafts.csswg.org/issues?spec=css-fonts-3&doc=cr-2017

  Chris: There wasn't a DoC so I made one. I sent mail to the list in
         case anyone had comments. No objections. There were a few
         rejections due to compat. Spec is up to date, change list is
         updated. We had a resolution to publish ages ago but we
         weren't ready.
  Chris: myles is on and I know there was work on fonts 4. Should we
         publish together?
  florian: I don't think they need to hold up.
  Chris: We have updated tests for fonts 3.
  myles: florian is correct there's no need to wait on one or the
         other. I'm reaching a pretty good place to publish fonts 4.
  Chris: Okay, that's fine.

  florian: Saw lots of edits from Myles on css-fonts via twitter, and
           was very happy about it.
  <myles> yep, i went through all the issues marked "Needs Edits"
  <myles> well, all but one

  Chris: I'd like a re-resolution.
  astearns: Comments on publishing updated CR of Fonts L3?
  astearns: Objections?
  <fantasai> +1 to publishing
  <tantek> +1

  RESOLVED: Publish updated CR of Fonts L3

  astearns: Thanks Chris
  <Chris> made a bunch of recent edits to fonts 3, too. Mainly
          clarifications, see the changes section

CSS Typed OM
============

Trim CSSResourceValue and subclasses to opaque objects for this
    level, punt rest to level 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
  github: https://github.com/w3c/css-houdini-drafts/issues/716

  shane: Let me look. I guess TabAtkins is not on.
  astearns: I think it was taking things out of the first level, but
            there's quite a lot of discussion.
  shane: We need TabAtkins.

CSS Snapshot 2018
=================
  github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2281

  Chris: I saw a PR with all the changes. I commented favorably but
         didn't approve to give time. florian anything else?
  florian: I'm happy with what I wrote and comfortable that you agree.
           It will not be enough to close the snapshot because there
           are other open questions. List of specs is done. There's a
           thing about indexes. Thread about if we should move
           normative text.
  Chris: That one we agreed we would. This snapshot will be a WD. When
         we publish next year we'll republish as a note.
  florian: If we agree on PR we'll merge it. If there's other things I
           can agenda+ this back.
  Chris: Okay.

  florian: Is dbaron on?
  florian: You suggested some additions. I took cascade 4 but the
           others had too many issues for my taste. Would you like to
           push back?
  dbaron: I think they're getting a bunch of impl. If the issues
          aren't getting resolved we need to deal with that.
  florian: I think there is a stable core, but 50 open issues I don't
           feel is stable and reliable. But we should get to them.
           They should be on the priority list. But not on the already
           stable.
  fantasai: Snapshot to to document what's stable, not things that
            should be. If there is some thing that we need to say this
            is cleared to ship unprefixed in broad release as an
            exception we can document that separately. These are
            things that are okay to ship. Transitions, animations, and
            transforms have been on the list forever. The spec isn't
            done.
  dbaron: We should gather that list. We might need a category for
          things that are stable because web needs them but spec
          doesn't cover it yet.
  florian: fantasai did open an issue about the first category.
  <florian> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2388
  florian: Link ^ please look.
  florian: For the other suggestion do you want an issue on that
           dbaron?
  dbaron: Maybe. Might depend on this other issue.
  florian: I'll agenda+ it now so we cycle back to it.

  florian: For the pull, should we merge?
  Chris: I would say we should. We can always make more changes later.
  astearns: Agree.
  <dbaron> Yeah, +1 to merging, can change more later if needed
  florian: Agree

  astearns: Anything more on the snapshot?
  Chris: Assuming we get linking/indexing do people want more time to
         suggest or do we move toward publish?
  florian: I'd like a resolution to fantasai's issue but then we can
           move to first public.
  astearns: Let's go back to issue #2388 on a future week.
  florian: Sounds good.

CSS Typed OM
============

Trim CSSResourceValue and subclasses to opaque objects for this
    level, punt rest to level 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
  github: https://github.com/w3c/css-houdini-drafts/issues/716

  astearns: Now that we have TabAtkins.
  TabAtkins: This was brought up a week or two ago as an ask for
             review. Anne had some discussion.
  TabAtkins: Big points: I did discuss rough outline before. Newer
             bits: because CSS distinguishes between normal and
             fragment-only URLs we want to reflect that in the URL
             structure somehow. To say this is full or fragment. My
             plan was storing what it was, but Anne remarked he would
             prefer if it was referred more directly either as a
             boolean or a separate URL class. franremy had a weak
             preference.
  TabAtkins: I'll do those edits soon. Any opinions let me know.
             Otherwise I'll do what I outline in the thread here.

  astearns: Any other opinions for TabAtkins to consider?
  astearns: Alright. We're on notice you're going to change.
  TabAtkins: I guess not. Wanted to ping for review because it's a
             decent change.

CSS Sizing
==========

Percentage sizing section is kind of vague
------------------------------------------
  github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1132#issuecomment-363623845

  fantasai: Sizing issue was that we...we're asking for review of the
            comment:
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1132#issuecomment-363623845
  astearns: There is a test. There are proposed edits in the comment.
  astearns: Basically you either want a resolution to make the edit or
            reasons why not or things to improve?
  fantasai: Yeah. Looking for review.
  fantasai: For margins and padding case I think it's a separate issue
            that we need to discuss.
  fantasai: This text is just about sizing properties. margins is not
            a sizing property.
  fantasai: For margins and padding we could honor whatever is in the
            calc that's not the percentage and treat percentage as 0.
            I suspect that would not cause a problem and makes a bit
            of sense to do if we can.
  fantasai: For sizing properties it's more complicated because you
            want to be able to measure the content. But for margins
            and padding there isn't a thing to measure. So we could
            resolve % against 0 to calc the containing block rather
            then ignore the margin entirely.

  franremy: This was brought up 2 weeks ago. me and dbaron reviewed
            and I think we were both fine with the proposal. dbaron
            pointed out you want to link to the sizing properties. I
            think this is fine. We found more things to work on but
            it's fine to open a new issue.
  dbaron: The one sentence...the one comment is I think containing a
          percent could be two different things. It could be syntactic
          or mathematic.
  tabatkins: 0% definitely should count as "containing a percentage".
  franremy: I think there is a test that covered this. We can clarify
            the text, but there is a test I think.
  fantasai: Yeah, we need clarification.
  dbaron: I'm fine given the clarification and hyperlink.

  astearns: Other comments?
  astearns: Does anyone object to the change with the clarification
            and hyperlink?
  <fantasai> Discussion of margins is kinda mixed in here:
             https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2297

  RESOLVED: Accept the edit in
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1132#issuecomment-363623845
            with a clarification and a hyperlinked term.

  fantasai: I think margin stuff is in issue #2297
  astearns: So franremy please look there and see if you can continue
            in that or open a separate issue.

Flexbox
=======

Min-content sizing currently too smart to be web compatible?
------------------------------------------------------------

  franremy: That was brought up last week. TabAtkins needed time to
            review. I don't know if they had time. If not we can move
            out.
  fantasai: Next week. I've been working on text last week.
  <TabAtkins> Same, been heads-down on TypedOM this last week.
  franremy: I think it's fine to skip

Backgrounds & Borders
=====================

20+ tests need correction
-------------------------
  link: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2017Sep/0051.html

  astearns: I think I saw some movement on this. I think someone
            opened an issue?
  dbaron: I went through Gerard's list. 2 chunks were Mozilla
          contributed. We didn't do something right to get support
          files in right. I filed an issue on that and if someone
          wants to tell me how to fix that we can get them better.
          There's a whole other piece.
  <Chris> they need to be in a subdirectory called support
  astearns: I don't think Gerard looks at github.
  dbaron: I responded to thread too.
  <dbaron> The issue I filed was
https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/issues/9912#issue-303294211
  <dbaron> And my www-style response was
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2018Mar/0018.html

  astearns: So there are other things that need to be addressed?
  dbaron: Yes. They included a big chunk but there are others.
  astearns: I know tmichel spent some time, but I don't know if he'll
            spend more.
  Chris: As I understand he's still tasked to work on it.
  astearns: Okay. Could you prod him?
  Chris: Yes.
  astearns: Hopefully we can have Gerald help us with the fix. Anybody
            else interested in looking at these issues? B&B is one of
            those specs we could get to PR if we get the test issues
            sorted out.
  astearns: Not hearing volunteers.

CSS Text Decor
==============

Characters to skip for emphasis marks (text-emphasis)
-----------------------------------------------------
  github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/839

  fantasai: This is about emphasis marks that are the dots put over
            the character. In general they're not on top of
            punctuation or spaces, just characters. When we drafted
            the css3 text for this koji and I asked what characters to
            skip. At that time Japanese task force said usually skip
            punctuation but the author might want to so you should put
            markup to skip.
  fantasai: That seemed to be their position and that's what we spec
            and then in L4 we added a property to control on
            punctuation or not etc.
  fantasai: We got a comment from someone as to why the dots are on
            the punctuation. That re-opened the topic. i18n said we
            should do the right thing by default and a control to
            allow other things.
  fantasai: Not skipping punctuation by default means authors have to
            do weird things with markup to get the right effect.
  fantasai: Does the group want us to change the behavior to only put
            emphasis on not-punctuation? Or keep the current behavior?
  <Chris> it sounds like the right thing to do, and I guess unicode
          character classes help there
  florian: If there's no compat constraints doing the right thing for
           default is better.
  many: I agree.
  Chris: Unicode character classes should make this fairly tractable
  florian: Some punctuation and symbols might be mixed up but mostly
           yes.

  myles: Do you have specific text as to how to tell where they should
         and should not go?
  fantasai: Looking for the reference.
  <fantasai> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-4/#text-emphasis-skip
  fantasai: It's here^
  fantasai: Basically we'd propose to change the initial value to
            spaces and punctuation.
  astearns: And change the default behavior to be that setting.
  astearns: Is text-emphasis-skip implemented?
  fantasai: No but if you don't impl you have to do the initial value.
            So we put the behavior to L3.
  myles: Is there a reason this should inherent specificity from text
         emphasis style?
  fantasai: Yes because you don't want to reset what should skip.
  myles: Isn't skipping document wide?
  fantasai: Did I mix it up?
  myles: No, no, you're right.
  fantasai: Kinda similar to why text underline position doesn't get
            reset by text decoration.
  myles: Right. Okay

  astearns: Given we have at least one complaint about current
            behavior and i18n okay to change it seems reasonable to me
            to move it into the current level of the spec.
  astearns: Objections to changing the default behavior for emphasis
            marks in the current level of text decoration spec?

  RESOLVED: Change the default behavior for emphasis marks in the
            current level of text decoration spec.

  fantasai: I'll edit that in and we can cycle back to republish next
            week.

Backgrounds & Borders 4
=======================

Border width rounding clarification
-----------------------------------
  github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2114

  fantasai: My question was do we want to work on this or leave it
            undefined. In the past we have left this kind of thing
            undefined.
  dbaron: Probably good to define better then we do, but not fully.
          That requires careful work to do. It's work figuring out
          what the range of behaviors is and figure out if there's
          willingness to converge and then spec around that range.
  astearns: So we need testing to see if there's something we could
            spec that's interop.
  franremy: It also depends on screen DPI which makes testing hard.
            It's always been tricky to get this right. We get from
            time to time reports we render differently but I am not
            confident it's easy to explain the exact behavior because
            every drawing path may be different. We need more testing
            yes.
  <dbaron> I think it's also more about the layout effects than the
           drawing paths.
  fantasai: Do we want to spend time on this and if so who?
  franremy: Eventually I might be able to but it's not a priority.
            We've been asked to investigate if we can be better
            interop. It's a stretch goal we could look. I'm fine
            assigning to me.
  astearns: And I suggest franremy you can ask the person that opened
            the issue if they have tests or evidence of convergence.
            We can put it on them what the solution should be.
  franremy: Sounds like an awesome idea.
  astearns: Good on this issue?
  fantasai: Yes.

CSS Counter Styles
==================

testing considerations
----------------------
  link: (member only)
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2018JanMar/0094.html

  liam: I've been trying to get the tests for counter styles 3 up to
        speed. 2 snags. One is there's only one impl of a lot of the
        spec. There's an @rule to make your own counters. Mozilla has
        done a reasonable job of impl but no one else has.
  liam: To test the built in ones I discovered you can't override the
        list items in browsers w/o counter styles 3. You're supposed
        to say it can be a quoted string and only FF supports.
  liam: I wanted to ask if anyone will impl this any time soon.
  liam: I thought of putting the @rule in L4 but the other ones are
        those you can't do the @rule. How can I ask for intent?
  myles: Webkit has no one working on this right now.
  liam: Microsoft?
  franremy: If it's not on the status page we're probably not working
            on it.

  xidorn: I don't think the @rule needs to be a blocker. We can move
          the requirement to impl in L4 and leave it in L3 as an
          informative thing to define other style behavior. Is that
          reasonable?
  Chris: It's a worst case. We used to have this enormous list and now
         there's a refactor so that for most there's the @rule and the
         stylesheet designer describes it. If we go back to the magic
         list it's strange. You get the things that can't be done
         without the @rule with the @rule not in the spec. The spec
         doesn't stand itself. If no one impl I guess that's all we
         can do.

  liam: Best compromise I can see is if other browser vendors impl
        setting list style to a fixed string you can write a polyfill
        for it.
  <Chris> agreed, setting to a fixed string would really help here
  myles: This is interesting to us, but this is the general response
         of I want you to impl X: it would help if you described the
         use cases and motivation in writing. That would help us
         prioritize.
  liam: I'm happy to. Do I do that as an issue against the draft?
  fantasai: I'd file against webkit for the string value you
            mentioned. Try and convince them to impl that so you have
            the things you need.
  franremy: I kind of recall getting a request from office to have
            this feature but we didn't follow up strongly. I think if
            support was better they'd want the feature.
  liam: Yes.
  astearns: Perhaps liam you could open an issue against webkit for
            the fixed string and then franremy you can copy that to an
            edge issue?
  franremy: We don't have issue for new features. We keep that to
            bugs. But there's probably something on user voice.
  <Chris> put it on uservoice then!
  myles: We track through bugs.
  liam: Okay, buy end of tonight I'll have the webkit issue.
  <franremy> https://wpdev.uservoice.com/forums/257854-microsoft-edge-developer/suggestions/32403796-support-for-counter-style

CSS Images 4
===========

Clear conic-gradient() for shipping
-----------------------------------
  github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2383

  astearns: leaverou put it in the issue.
  astearns: There's an impl, there's not outstanding problems. She
            things it's time to clear it for shipping as Chrome wants
            to ship. Likely won't be problems when other engines impl.
  Chris: I agree. The polyfill has been out for a while and the syntax
         is stable.
  florian: No problem.
  <florian> I support clearing it for shipping
  leaverou: Implementation has been out for a year as well.

  astearns: Any concerns about clearing for shipping?
  <fantasai> sgtm
  astearns: Objections for clearing conic-gradient for shipping?

  RESOLVED: Clear conic-gradient() for shipping

Misc Announcements
===================

  astearns: I'm not sure there are other issues for the next 2 minutes.
  fantasai: One thing to point out. There's issues about defining
            max-lines block ellipsis and webkit line clamp. florian
            and I worked for a few days. We posted a proposal. We're
            putting this on F2F agenda, but please look before then if
            interested.
  <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/390#issuecomment-371076389

  Rossen: I heard there was discussion about making normative changes
          to CSS3 UI. Does this need WG time?
  florian: Maybe at some point but not yet.
  tantek: I don't think it needs WG time.
  rossen: Making sure we're covered on our end
  florian: I'll get back to the group if necessary.

  florian: I made a 'tracked in DoC label' in github to help people
           compiling DoCs

  astearns: We're done. Talk to you all next week.
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2018 10:56:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:10 UTC