- From: Dael Jackson <daelcss@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 06:21:20 -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. ========================================= CSS Color 4 ----------- - There was some confusion on what properties are included in the resolution for issue #3804 (Resolved: add the original list of colors from TabAtkins and fantasai as well as Field, FieldText and ActiveText). melanierichards will draft a PR for chris to review and add to the spec. - RESOLVED: Take what we're calling image-p3 in our spec and rename it to display-p3 (Issue #4056) CSS Lists --------- - RESOLVED: Leave undefined for now and add a note explaining why [it's undefined] (Issue #4004: Should option/optgroup be able to set counters?) CSS Content ----------- - RESOLVED: Add an 'auto' value (Issue #4074: Initial value of quotes should be auto) - The group was interested in discussing a more exact definition of the new 'auto' value to try and get an interoperable value that roundtrips. Geometry -------- - RESOLVED: Add back in the overflow for DOMMatrix readonly to the DOMMatric constructor (FXTF Issue #346) Writing Modes ------------- - Issue #4026 (Need to define the list of calculations that require a definite inline space) needs to be reviewed before the spec can continue its path toward REC. ===== FULL MINUTES BELOW ====== Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2019Jul/0000.html Present: Rossen Atanassov David Baron Amelia Bellamy-Royds Oriol Brufau Tantek Çelik Elika Etemad Dael Jackson Dean Jackson Chris Lilley Cameron McCormack Melanie Richards Florian Rivoal Alan Stearns Lea Verou Regrets: Rachel Andrew Tab Atkins Christian Biesinger Manuel Rego Casasnovas Christopher Schmitt Dirk Schulze Greg Whitworth Scribe: dael CSS Color 4 =========== Resolution Clarification for Issue #3804 ---------------------------------------- astearns: Let's get started <Rossen> I have one small topic - it is about this resolution here (https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3804) Did we resolve to undeprecate ALL previously deprecated system colors or only the set required for High Contrast + the new ones required by Apple (smfr) astearns: Rossen mentioned an extra topic in IRC about high contrast and dark mode colors astearns: Does anyone know the answer to his IRC question? * fantasai can't see the question, has too much lag <Rossen> Yes, I just wanted a clarification to our resolution <Rossen> This resolution here (https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3804) Did we resolve to undeprecate ALL previously deprecated system colors or only the set required for High Contrast + the new ones required by Apple (smfr) astearns: Since no one has an answer on the phone I'll ask him to add a comment <astearns> Rossen: can you add a comment to that thread asking the question? fantasai: What was the question? fantasai: Ah. fantasai: Only resolve to undeprecate the ones listed in the issue, not all <Rossen> OK, thank you Elika. We will undeprecate the ones for High Contrast + the ones from smfr <fantasai> Rossen, not exactly -- we're going with the ones listed in the resolution astearns: Anyone else have extra items for the agenda? fantasai: If chris is here I have publication questions astearns: I don't see him in webex or IRC <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/142 CSS Text ======== Clarify whether soft breaks exist at boundaries of an inline element with `word-break:break-all` -------------------------------------------------------------------- github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3897 astearns: From last week. Sounded like we wanted to make progress on GH, but not sure if that happened. astearns: Is there anything we can do on the call or does it need time+comments? [silence] astearns: We'll come back to this CSS Multicol ============ column-fill should behave more similarly in paginated and continuous contexts -------------------------------------------------------------------- github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4036#issuecomment-506507437 astearns: I think there was progress. Something we can resolve on here? dbaron: I wrote down my interpretation. What we need is Blink and WK impl feedback astearns: Any WK feedback on this issue? astearns: You suggested revert but that requires Blink and WK to agree tantek: Looks like smfr joined IRC at least. astearns: Are you on call smfr ? <smfr> no but myles and dino should be myles: I'm on, but nothing to say myles: No comment astearns: I'll remove agenda+ tag until we get feedback <smfr> I would have to digest this before commenting fantasai: Does that mean only waiting on WK? astearns: Both would be good. fantasai: Probably want to ask Morton. astearns: Fair astearns: I'll add a comment mentioning a few people to see if I can shake anything out in GH discussion Publishing questions ==================== astearns: I see chris is on IRC. Are you on call as well? fantasai: Can you [chris] get display published? Other question was about edits to css color L4 related to forced colors mode fantasai: There was confusion about that so might be good to get that edited in chris: Thing with display is there were duplicate IDs fantasai: I believe they're fixed chris: Cool fantasai: If not, ping me I will fix chris: astearns did we add renaming image back to display? astearns: On the agenda astearns: Other question about color L4 edits? chris: There's an open issues, is there a PR? fantasai: I can do edits if you want melanierichards: I can help submit a PR for this chris: That would help, sure. Thanks. dino: There's no GH for this? <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3804 fantasai: This is the one Rossen brought up. astearns: Issue #3804 astearns: I haven't reviewed, is there a resolution fantasai: Yes. astearns: Only colors in issue itself fantasai: In the resolution, yeah astearns: We'll wait on a PR CSS Lists ========= Should option/optgroup be able to set counters? ----------------------------------------------- github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4004#issuecomment-506906199 astearns: We left it at fantasai and TabAtkins suggesting we punt on replaced elements for now <TabAtkins> Yes fantasai: Dug into issue a little. Seems like figuring out what's going on for form controls is a mess. To get spec to reflect reality we figured fine for spec to leave it undefined. fantasai: Want to check with WG if really want to dig into the issue heycam: I think need to do at some point, but okay undefining it for now. At some point need to consider alternate presentations of certain elements like select and what it means to allow UAs to have CSS based and nonCSS based presentations. heycam: Make sure counters and anything else makes sense in presence of presenting these in different ways astearns: Given we have 1.5 impl that reset counters and option/ optgroup are the most list-like would it make sense to define those and leave reset? fantasai: Could. Want to move to a world with more styling rather than less. Makes sense elements with some visual representation can handle counters. No reason they can't manipulate counters. I don't feel strongly this is important to solve right now. Happy to leave undefined and let implementations merge toward more things being countable AmeliaBR: Specific behavior for option/optgroup the inconsistencies with counters are related to other styling inconsistencies. Getting a proper model for explaining how option/optgroup and selects in general work for display trees would be useful. Special rules for counters without whole model might make more complicated heycam: Counters are special because can effect things without. Separate from general stylability in that way. Seems we could solve counter issue independent in terms of should be observable outside the select so counters increment heycam: Am I right that if counters increment inside you can see it outside? fantasai: Yeah astearns: In some browsers it has effect, in others it does not heycam: Agree with fantasai might not be super important. Does seem like a discussion we can have about if it's acceptable to make UAs that don't have CSS based and therefore boxes should do something else to inc. counters fantasai: I think cases where this shows up is test cases. I can image using counters within select box but not referencing them outside. Given not sure how this impacts impl architecture. I'm leaning to undefined and let them converge. I don't think we should spend effort getting impl to align. If there's a use case later we can add it. That's why I advocate leave undefined. What impl doing is probably fine for now astearns: What if we resolve to undefine at this level and add a note we're doing this because no interop and don't have a use case guiding to the right direction fantasai: More no use case to spend engineering effort to align. Right direction for authors is honors counters. That's what they would expect and it's reasonable. Don't think it matters in this strange case astearns: Just having a note why we're leaving undefined. fantasai: I can have a note that there's no interop and we don't think it's important to get interop so we're leaving it undefined astearns: Any further arguments to not leave undefined? tantek: Can we live with this being a compat issue where we have to become compat with whatever Chrome does? astearns: Are you aware of any Gecko bugs currently? tantek: I don't. I believe that us leaving undefined in the long term means it'll end up being a compat issue with Chrome. If we can live with what Chrome does eventually spec may have to specify that behavior. AmeliaBR: Given it's lack of feature in dominant browser I don't know if that argument is that strong. I don't think people will rely on counters not working in optgroups. There might be a zombie CSS issue if it ever works but that's not major web compat argument. tantek: Okay astearns: Proposal is leave undefined for now and add a note explaining why astearns: Objections? RESOLVED: Leave undefined for now and add a note explaining why CSS Color ========= Predefined colorspaces (renaming image-p3 to display-p3) -------------------------------------------------------- github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4056#issuecomment-505993145 <chris> I looked into the edit history, there were a number of changes from dci-p3 to where we are now. Rik was the main contributor; there was discussion on the commits. See for example https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/557/commits/644c4c49b86d97bb59bf74e533bdfbe339f3d176 chris: Looked at this. When originally put in spec confusion between dci-p3 and what Apple used. I originally called it dci-p3 and that was wrong for many reasons chris: Thought we had a resolution, but can't find it. Went through edit history and it went through name changes. I'm happy changing to to what everyone knows it as dino: My memory is not great. At some point I posted the profile for it given the idea it can be linked form the spec. I'm in favor of display-p3. Also willing to add another named to dci-p3 but I don't think there's a need chris: I don't think there is. dci-p3 has strange greenish white and designed for use in digital cinema. Not appropriate for web dino: That's the main driver for Apple creating what we call display-p3 tantek: You said because it's designed for dark environments it's not appropriate for web dino: Pitch black rooms tantek: People do use the web in dark rooms dino: This is just the convenience method. You can get the same result using display-p3. It just happens to have been calibrated for different env. tantek: Is that calibration not useful when looking at web in the dark? dino: If you're writing to be used in something like a cinema sure astearns: That's an argument to add dci-p3, but this is about what do we call the thing that we know is not dci-p3 and we want to support it AmeliaBR: Adding separate profile can defer until demand. There is demand to match the thing Apple does. If the definition is match Apple then we should match the name unless there's trademark reasons dino: Nothing Apple specific about this other than we gave it a name. That's why I posted the file. There's nothing secret or protected about this chris: Given that I would like to call for resolution astearns: I could not find reason why we changed from display-p3 to image-p3. There's some discussion about how web isn't only for displayed, but not terribly compelling. astearns: Proposal: Take what we're calling image-p3 in our spec and rename it to display-p3 astearns: Objections? RESOLVED: Take what we're calling image-p3 in our spec and rename it to display-p3 dino: Anything we can do in CSS to stop people from using their phone in a cinema? ^_^ astearns: Happy to follow the incubation process CSS Content =========== Initial value of quotes should be auto -------------------------------------- github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4074 heycam: Commenter is happy with deciding or not on call AmeliaBR: Request is a new value auto to be clear. This is language sensitive default dbaron: I think that's the idea dbaron: Idea is that WK and Blink use an initial value that is not something they can serialize that triggers language dependent marks. Would like to do in Gecko, but want to be able to serialize and roundtrip AmeliaBR: I think this is something authors would want to use. Might not need to set explicitly if it's sensible default. heycam: Can use initial to get this unserializable value astearns: Is reason because no one wanted to impl auto in past? Reason why we did not do this previously? dbaron: I don't know. I do know it used to be the spec acted as though you would write all language dependent values in CSS in UA stylesheet. Some have non-speedy selectors and it's better to impl in not-CSS and more direct data from CLDR AmeliaBR: In spec have a 'depends on UA initial value'. Not great because means no interop. Sounds like in some UA depends on more than a single value. Having an auto value and the UAs that have a simple initial value auto can resolve to the initial value florian: Auto and initial value for language reasons is reasonable. Are you considering specifying what the behavior is or is it meant to be impl dependent? AmeliaBR: Good question. Should we define auto needs to be sensible language based dbaron: Could be more precise depending on interop situation. Worth follow-up investigation. Worth coming up with more specific, but no one has that written down right now florian: If we define what it is eventually I support auto value myles: Having the initial value be auto is a good idea. Should do it astearns: Having rough consensus for auto value that is for now impl dependent but it serializes well <fantasai> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/rendering.html#quotes fantasai: HTML spec, I believe this is out of CLDR. Has a definition for quotes. Seems to be all we're asking for is an auto value with this behavior built into it. So UA stylesheet just says auto and have this behavior. So we have a definition. Might want to update the definition but not defining from scratch AmeliaBR: Sounds good. Simplify UA stylesheet. Integrate into CSS. fantasai: None of these selectors are HTML specific AmeliaBR: But for default HTML @namespace. fantasai: We can drop the @namespace AmeliaBR: Either way making it defined in CSS rather than HTML means defined for all CSS applications myles: Should allow for other browsers to change CLDR rules. Shouldn't say must adhere to exactly what CLDR says florian: Do you have specific ways you want to differ from CLDR or just fundamental principle? myles: I'm sure we have tweaking. Lots of designers and language experts that have many different opinions in our company. Don't have specific example off the top of my head astearns: Aside from question of defining exact behavior of auto, does anyone object to adding an auto value? RESOLVED: Add an 'auto' value astearns: I'm open to figuring out if we can define this. Would be good to have specific proposal, not just pointing to another spec ans saying copy. If someone wants to define auto more closely good to open a new issue with a proposal. Sound okay for everybody? heycam: Yeah Geometry ======== DOMMatrix constructor is a performance and code portability footgun ------------------------------------------------------------------- github: https://github.com/w3c/fxtf-drafts/issues/346 astearns: krit sent regrets. TabAtkins said makes sense. chris: [missed] said he didn't need to be in discussion and happy with what we agreed astearns: Proposal was [reads]. I don't entirely understand it. AmeliaBR: I don't entirely understand it either. Right now the constructor allows either a string or an iterate-able object. In certain environments if you pass another matrix object as a parameter it gets serialized to a string and reparsed and act like it works. In others it won't happens and it throws. Concern this is bad AmeliaBR: Not sure why sometimes serialized and not others AmeliaBR: Request is support another constructor overload that you can construct any matrix by copying values of another matrix object heycam: Don't understand why it is worker throws exception dbaron: I suspect some serialization or parsing code not exposed to workers. <dbaron> yeah, the stringifier is Window-only AmeliaBR: If behavior in a window is it serializes and parse back again it doesn't sound efficient. Direct cloning is more efficient dbaron: Difference is because stringifier is DOM only. dbaron: There's consensus in issue. Asking WG to declare that astearns: I don't see anyone saying it's a bad idea to revert the change dbaron: And it's part of a change being reverted, not the entire heycam: I also don't understand underlying motivation of removing overloads in general astearns: Proposal: Add back in the overflow for DOMMatrix readonly to the DOMMatric constructor astearns: Objections? AmeliaBR: Question- do we have multiple implementor consensus? astearns: I see Blink and Gecko in comments AmeliaBR: Probably okay unless someone from WK objects RESOLVED: Add back in the overflow for DOMMatrix readonly to the DOMMatric constructor Writing Modes ============= astearns: 2 weeks ago talked about pushing Writing Modes forward. astearns: florian you were going to file and issue on Gecko? florian: I have not, but dbaron raised an issue about part of spec in question. Someone who is not me, probably fantasai or koji, should look. Filing an issue while considering changing the spec is not best time. <fantasai> I think the issue was asking for clarification <fantasai> Not a change particularly florian: I have not given up on pushing writing modes forward. For people that understand writing modes, looking at dbaron's issue is a good idea <dbaron> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4026 florian: That's the one; dbaron just posted florian: fantasai, koji, and others if you can look it would be good astearns: Thanks. I will ask again next week for what progress we've made. If the issue has baring on test results we can get that sorted. astearns: Anyone have anything else to do in last 7 minutes? astearns: We're done. Thanks everybody and talk to you next week!
Received on Thursday, 4 July 2019 10:22:25 UTC