- 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