- From: Dael Jackson <daelcss@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 17:57:08 -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. ========================================= Selectors --------- - RESOLVED: Mark this as at risk and optional, remove profile (Issue #3925: Rescope :has to static CSS rather than .querySelector) CSS Images ---------- - Issue #3659 (lazyload) appeared to be duplicated by issue #1603 (Define crossorigin, preload and async URL modifiers) and will be closed unless there's feedback to differentiate the two issues. Values 3 -------- - RESOLVED: Republish CR of Values 3 Toronto F2F ----------- - Anyone planning to attend should add their name to the wikis for CSS and Houdini ===== FULL MINUTES BELOW ====== Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2019May/0007.html Present: Rossen Atanassov David Baron Amelia Bellamy-Royds Oriol Brufau Dave Cramer Elika Etemad Simon Fraser Tony Graham Dael Jackson Brian Kardell Peter Linss Myles Maxfield Anton Prowse Melanie Richards Florian Rivoal Greg Whitworth Regrets: Rachel Andrew Tab Atkins Daniel Bates Christian Biesinger Chris Lilley Alan Stearns Lea Verou Scribe: dael Selectors ========= Rescope :has to static CSS rather than .querySelector ----------------------------------------------------- github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3925 fantasai: It was pointed out nobody impl :has not even in .querySelector. Spec should align with reality and not say you can use it. It is implemented in Prince XML so maybe needs to stay in spec but scope to PDF renderers florian: I think we discussed in the past and wanted to ban it from PDF engines as well b/c worry it would creep out of that narrow use case and we'd be stuck for compat reasons. Or something along those lines. Couldn't find minutes fantasai: We did. And that's why it explicitly says shouldn't be used in CSS but reality is that's not what's happening Rossen: If this is reality than what fantasai suggested makes sense Rossen: Any additional comments or challenges to this? florian: Okay changing .querySelector but not sure about PDF render fantasai: Reused a definition about static not dynamic florian: Does [list of things] count? fantasai: Up to implementors if it counts Rossen: It is implementation specific fantasai: If you don't like this division either we remove and people are non-conformant or we convince more people to implement. So what do you want to do? florian: Since existing implementation violates spec about if they should implement and if we put a feature in the spec saying this is a thing you may or may not want to implement sure. I don't know if static render definition makes a difference, but if browsers aren't worried about creeping out sure dauwhe: Other instances of infections creeping out? florian: Intentionally yes, accidentally not sure dauwhe: Seems low risk fantasai: It's not we don't want this in browsers, it's that no one has figured out how to do it in a performant way. fantasai: If a browser figures out how to do it we'd be happy florian: Keep in spec, remove profile distinction, mark at risk Rossen: Have enough features not implemented, reducing that is a great goal. Lingering things in spec that's an idea that won't happen isn't good. There's history in github and repos that people could find. I'd move forward to drop now and if people want to make a case they will <gregwhitworth> +1 to what Rossen said bkardell: Sorry, didn't have sound early in call. We added distinction between profiles because it could easily be impl in JS in theory. I think we hear people saying it doesn't add much, I disagree with that. Isn't the way the spec is written, I thought it was specifically because if a vendor wanted to experimentally impl in full profile that's okay. Is that not the case? florian: Spec says browsers please don't do this. We didn't want someone to ship while others didn't know how. If that was a good idea is separate question, but spec says must not implemented in CSS, only JS. florian: To Rossen's point it's not just not going to happen, it's not going to happen probably in browsers, but it is happening in other vendors with the name. We put at risk, push to L5 if we go to rec Rossen: Should we then spec other features in JS library? florian: It's a feature we specced rendered by a CSS. Just not a browser bkardell: It's in jQuery for same reason, because it was in CSS when it was rewritten <gregwhitworth> bkardell: is that really the order of things, I thought jQuery had it prior to any spec text existing florian: Maybe we go to rec with 2 implementations, jQuery and Prince. A bit of a stretch florian: I feel bad removing it after it's implemented in several places and freeing up the namespace doesn't sound nice. fantasai: I think disingenuous to remove completely given there is an implementation of something standardized. Seems like we only put things in spec if a browser implements but another non-browser implementation isn't worthy. If this was webkit not Prince we wouldn't talk about drop bkardell: What if Webkit only did it for print stylesheets fantasai: We be conformant to spec bkardell: I think florian just said it would violate current spec florian: Yes because extra restriction AmeliaBR: Question now is this whole idea of live vs snapshot profiles, is it implemented anywhere? No one is implementing things for .querySelector that's not for CSS. Only UA that does .has is as a css selectors. That part of spec needs reconsider, but what direct? .has is not in spec or drop the profile idea? florian: I'd go with later and mark at-risk fantasai: and optional florian: I don't know what difference it makes but okay fantasai: Means not required to conform bkardell: So Prince is in violation? florian: Is now, but if we do this it wouldn't be <hober> fwiw i agree with rossen, but i'm also okay with moving it from L4 to L5 as a compromise bkardell: Can someone recap? Remove the profile notion and mark at risk and options? fantasai: At risk makes it easier to remove later. It's a process thing. Optional means you can be conformant to module without doing this AmeliaBR: It's separate module you can implement or not but it's tucked inside main selectors fantasai: Yeah. When first did profiles there were many features, but now there's just this one bkardell: If someone implements for .querySelector only it's okay? fantasai: Yes bkardell: And a print stylesheet or static processing engine that's okay? fantasai: Yes bkardell: sgtm Rossen: Nearing consensus. Any other additional thoughts before we move this to L5 and mark at risk? AmeliaBR: How is @supports selector supposed to work with selectors impl only in JS and not CSS. Separate issue. florian: Another point. In past other proposed selectors such as focus-inside that were initially rejected by bodies because we have :has. We can rebuff with saying browsers don't do it. Can now with intent to implement bkardell: Begs the question of lots of documented use cases of possible withins that are solved by this. 100 withins is not wonderful thing fantasai: I think we should tackle that in separate issue fantasai: There's various approaches we can take <bkardell> also sgtm to tackle in another issue Rossen: Agree. Rossen: Objections to resolve by move this to L5 and mark at risk and optional fantasai: Leave in L4. It is impl. This isn't even CR yet. We're not trying to trim to 2 implementations yet. <bkardell> +1 to leave in l4 florian: At risk is enough. Rossen: That's fine. Mark this as at risk and optional RESOLVED: Mark this as at risk and optional, remove profile CSS Images ========== lazyload -------- github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3659 Rossen: gregwhitworth is IRC only, let's do this later CSS Text ======== pre-wrap and tabs at the end of the line ---------------------------------------- github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3869 fantasai: I summarized issue. No agreement on if tabs can hang at end of line. Only use case is tab separated value files. No clear direction florian: I was actioned to give examples and haven't. Agree with fantasai we agree on break spaces, but pre-wrap is tricky. Rossen: Remove from agenda until have test cases? florian: May also want to do break-spaces resolution Rossen: Let's look at everything at once. Otherwise you might find some new evidence and we need to re-open Rossen: I'll remove agenda+ When to/not to include preserved trailing spaces ------------------------------------------------ github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3440 Rossen: Is koji on? fantasai: If koji isn't we should defer. Maybe koji florian and I do a separate call. No clear idea of what we should do. Rossen: No issue with that. If you move the conversation and then we can come back either before F2F or at F2F. florian: sgtm CSS Values ========== Define crossorigin, preload and async URL modifiers --------------------------------------------------- github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1603 AmeliaBR: I didn't put this on the agenda, chris did. Is he on? Rossen: I don't see regrets, but he might still be on vacation AmeliaBR: We talked about this at last F2F. We resolved some syntactic details about URL functions with modifiers. General consensus we should pursue harmonizing with HTML for image loading modifiers. Waiting on someone to sit down and write a proposal. I haven't done that. Not sure what Chris wanted to do on call Rossen: If we need to wait that's fine. I'll remove agenda+ so that it doesn't come back until it's ready. CSS Images ========== lazyload -------- github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3659 Rossen: Don't know if gregwhitworth made it gregwhitworth: I'm here gregwhitworth: This isn't my issue, but I dug into what I think this person wanted that bg images weren't be loaded by lazyloading. I'm not sure what this person wanted so I suggest we close until more clarification. Chris pointed out there is already an issue from AmeliaBR about modifiers. I'd close as dup and ask for more details. Rossen: Close the issue back to the owner and ask for more details? gregwhitworth: I pinged him and asked to clarify. I'd close as dup to the one Chris L referenced. Rossen: Any other members that read or want to discuss this? Rossen: If not we can do that Rossen: No hearing takers. I'll clear up the labels and move the issue back to the owner Values 3 ======== Republish Values 3 ------------------ fantasai: We discussed bracketed range notation at last F2F. TabAtkins and I folded that in last month. We need to republish. It's a CR Rossen: Sounds good. florian: This new thing is arguably editorial. The bracket notation. <fantasai> Changes list https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values-3/#changes Rossen: Still want to have WG resolution florian: Just that it's the lighter form or republication <fantasai> New section is https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values-3/#numeric-ranges Rossen: Trying to gage if people want time AmeliaBR: I do have an open PR. Trusting that'll get integrated before republication florian: Doesn't have to be before AmeliaBR: It includes Values 3 edits. It's clean up on top of what fantasai pushed. Major ones are already on there. Rossen: Do you have PR? AmeliaBR: #3894 <AmeliaBR> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/3894 fantasai: Happy to add in the changes you're suggesting, but I will want to hold off on merging changes to other specs until after Values 3 is published. Rossen: Values 3 changes are straightforward. <fantasai> Amelia's changes https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/3894/files#diff-c3798e248ee6e7eeb80c7b12f053a5de <fantasai> Just Editorial fixes AmeliaBR: My changes are minor. fantasai already merged major changes into ED which introduce new syntax. Is defining a new syntax with no normative effects on impl is that sufficient to count as editorial change for CR fantasai: Good question Rossen: Not sure AmeliaBR: florian, does this count as editorial where we define new syntax but it has no normative impact requirements. florian: I don't think process is clear. Probably isn't editorial fantasai: Change to spec convention of how they describe, but doesn't change definition florian: Definition of what's editorial is quite limited and probably this isn't under it. Borderline probably not editorial. florian: There's 2 categories of what's editorial, Markup and titles/ grammatical error but correcting clarification is not editorial. I think that's all that editorial bkardell: Is this the second? florian: It's not a bug in an example bkardell: Clarifying. florian: Clarifying non-ambiguous. You'd have to make the argument it's not obvious fantasai: I don't think we care. If it's REC might be worth quibbling, updating a REC requires like three publications and an AC vote. It's CR let's go through normal process. <florian> +1 to fantasai, let's just do it. Rossen: [missed] hober: If this were a change in webIDL it's not a hard question florian: Same kind of question hober: Trying to say it is a change that impacts specs that depend on it. I think it's okay that it's not editorial Rossen: Seems to be agreement around that Rossen: Anyone need additional time to review? Or we can resolve? Rossen: Objections on Republish CR of Values 3 florian: With AmeliaBR's PR? Rossen: Yes since AmeliaBR PR doesn't introduce anything that changes the way this would be republished. * fantasai doing that right now AmeliaBR: And if fantasai wants to cherry pick markup fixes that's fine. Rossen: I'm sure fantasai will figure it out. Rossen: Objections? RESOLVED: Republish CR of Values 3 Rossen: fantasai you'll handle this? fantasai: Yes, I can <florian> I have reviewed the multicol part of that PR, that too can be landed F2F === <dbaron> https://wiki.csswg.org/planning/toronto-2019 dbaron: Please make sure you have listed yourself as an attendee and if you're attending Houdini dbaron: If you have dietary requirements please email me. Rossen: Should we add a column for that on the wiki? dbaron: I've got a bunch in emails so I'd prefer that. bkardell: How would you like us to err on maybe attending dbaron: Put yourself on the list and put you're a maybe. Rossen: Thanks dbaron. Please add yourself if you haven't Rossen: Anything else? Rossen: Everyone gets back 20 minutes. Thank you
Received on Wednesday, 15 May 2019 21:58:31 UTC