- From: Dael Jackson <daelcss@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 18:55:26 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
- Cc: public-houdini@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.
=========================================
Getting images' aspect ratio right from html attributes
(continued from Monday)
-------------------------------------------------------
- After a few days to think about the proposal as there was no
consensus on what was the best way forward - add new attributes
(original plan) or do property mapping (new plan).
- Chrome is committed to investigating further and will analyze both
approaches before selecting one and putting the work into WICG.
CSS Inline
----------
- RESOLVED: We'll add a separate property for this [first/last
baseline values of `vertical-align`] (Issue #861: Should
first/last baseline values of `vertical-align` belong to
`alignment-baseline` or separate longhand?)
Houdini <3 Text (aka Houdini and text layout)
---------------------------------------------
- There are several different paths the group could take when
Houdini builds its API for interacting with Text (Houdini Issue
#854). These range from a region-like API, where your content
flows from one box to the other to exposing glyph indices and
font metrics through the API. These approaches also come with a
similar range of potential for footguns.
- Widely the group leaned toward collecting use cases and solving
the safest of them first (that still would have broad usage)
before extending the API further.
- Exposing justification was one possible first step. Another
possibility was a property set to assist minority languages such
as what's being done in Graphite and AAT.
- Work will continue one scoping out a preliminary feature set and
drafting a proposal.
CSS Text
--------
- RESOLVED: Add the stable value [to text-wrap] (Issue #672: Allow
for paragraph-level line breaking)
===== FULL MINUTES BELOW ======
Agenda: https://wiki.csswg.org/planning/sf-2019
Scribe: argyle
Getting images' aspect ratio right from html attributes
(continued from Monday)
-------------------------------------------------------
florian: My understanding is that we all agreed this would be a good
idea if possible, and we should check if possible
florian: Tab disagrees, I want to hear that
florian: For context: "it" is using the width and height HTML
attributes to trigger the intrinsic aspect ratio
fantasai: Specifically, where we map the width and height HTML
attributes to width and height CSS properties, we could
also use them to calculate the ratio and also map that
back to CSS (using the new aspect-ratio property).
fantasai: That would solve the problem around the aspect ratio
information would be lost due to waiting for the image to
load, waiting to discover auto sizing
fantasai: so the proposal was to do that instead of introducing new
attributes to solve the same problem
Rossen: What is the data we need to gather then?
florian: So we don't break the web
Rossen: For the width and height
florian: Do we not agree?
TabAtkins: Having width and height be presentation attributes, and
not affecting those new and exciting ways
TabAtkins: The other reason I liked it, some of the other things,
like picture, you wanted to give an intrinsic size to
them, and it feels semantically better to be specific
about being intrinsic than doing css things that also set
intrinsic sizes.
florian: There's no intrinsic tools to do this
* fantasai thinks ojan should be here
<AmeliaBR> +1 to Tab's argument about `<picture><source
intrinsicsize="...">` making more sense than width &
height
myles: What about canvas?
myles: We should consider the interaction with canvas where w and h
have other meanings other than mapping to css
TabAtkins: It sets the backing store on width/height, which is
compatible
dbaron: ... If this is a major thing sites can do to improve
loading, if a cms can just do this, that's great, and it
means that lots of sites can get it cheaply
dbaron: I think, if it's it's own attribute it we can do that, I
don't think it's as safe to do if we're re-using width and
height
florian: If the cms wanted to check if there was previously a width
and height, they could still inject the w/h and multiply by
what's needed, but they also need to check min-height and
max-height, and then it gets messy
astearns: We're theorizing about things Ojan has experience in, at
the most this conversation should inform what he continues
to do as he tries to find a solution
astearns: but I'm not sure I see the utility of theorizing when we
have an experimenter
florian: Utility is we don't need to experiment if we have other
demos, not worth checking if we don't want to do it anyway
<TabAtkins> `<style>img { width: 100%; }</style> <img
intrinsicsize="350x450">` works by default. Changing it
to <img width=350 height=450> doesn't work; you have to
manually set `height: auto` in CSS too.
jensimmons: I think the original intention behind what fantasai was
saying, here's an idea, might be much simpler than
adding new attributes, we'd like this considered
jensimmons: I do think there's a way to do it that hooks into CMSes
and existing things, instead of making it more
complicated
jensimmons: If only width is coming out of a cms, and there's no
height, there's no mapping to intrinsic, we can map with
that limited data
jensimmons: Maybe there's something more complex needed, and we do
both
jensimmons: But I think there's an elegance here tapping into what
we already have. Perhaps that's what ojan is intending
jensimmons: Hey, we're going to solve some of this in css, and to
have that really heard, .. that's what I'd like to see
happen
Rossen: Where does this leave us?
jensimmons: Sounds like someone's going to find something out
AmeliaBR: I think it's great, we're leveraging something that
already works, but I think I agree with the arguments
there's too many cases where things can get messy for
repurposing
AmeliaBR: If browsers implemented the attr() function that maps
values to lengths, ... any image, grab these values,
put them together, here's the ratio
AmeliaBR: Not sure if there's utility if no one's has implemented it
yet
<jensimmons> +1 to what AmeliaBR just said
<jensimmons> maybe that could even be included in a project called
CSS Remedy
TabAtkins: I feel like there's just more discussion, but in the way
of being explicit with cases and approaches, and I don't
know if I want to spend time trying to nail it down
fantasai: There are advantages of using existing attributes. Like
for images in pages already out there, we get the faster
layout/loading for free. Info is already there
fantasai: No updating cms, no html file updates, it would let
browsers hook into it via current functionality
jensimmons: There's 100,000s of sites that put height and width on
images in the CMS already. Then in their code, put
width: 100%; height: auto in their CSS. Decade of work
is built that way, and likely aren't maintained
jensimmons: Quick way to boost all sites by re-using existing attrs
jensimmons: Don't get deep into picture element, ..., hey this is a
performance thing, but it back in and it'll be faster
jensimmons: Other proposals will use it for be used for simple and
complicated things, and some it'll be too much
fantasai: Historically, we've asked users to put weight and height
on images for performance, all the way back into the 90s,
and we'd be hooking into that advice. This proposal hooks
into existing content and knowledge better. It won't only
work on new things developed by people who keep up with
latest tech.
TabAtkins: Happy to do more discussion, but not confident enough to
decide now, or for us.
chrishtr: Maybe we could break out and talk about it?
chrishtr: I don't think I fully understand, and I'd like time for
that
Rossen: Okay so, I didn't hear that say the HTML width and height
attributes is the worst idea I've ever heard, we shouldn't
do it
Rossen: I also didn't hear we shouldn't think about the intrinsic
aspect ratio, because it'll just work
Rossen: TabAtkins has committed to work on this fully
TabAtkins: Chrome people will be working on this
Rossen: Kidding aside, we'll close this issue for now. Thanks for
introducing it to the working group, and making it an actual
proposal
Rossen: I think there was another bit in this, which was css
property, which will then have to map using either the
height or width attributes, as a ratio, or whatever else is
there, if anything is added as an additional attribute
Rossen: I think the property can be discussed at a later point, or
is this something you want to discuss later today
fantasai: It's already in the draft, we resolved to add awhile back
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/333
https://drafts.csswg.org/css-sizing-4/#aspect-ratio
jensimmons: So this discussion about not doing other things in HTML,
just stuff we've already talked about
jensimmons: There will be more to talk about aspect-ratio with
min-height and min-width
jensimmons: There is a question of: do we put in what's there
already in the draft, support for ??, whether it's
happening in the UA style sheet, we do have the ability
to grab information about height and width
jensimmons: Might be right in between, and I think we should do what
Rossen mentioned
Rossen: Great point, thank you. Before we move on
AmeliaBR: I have a question: it's not being proposed by a web group.
Before we get a css spec, we need to get that moving up
into the HTML wg, so it's outside our scope, so long as
it's going through process and getting standardized.
chrome pushed it without standardization, we need to make
sure that happens
TabAtkins: Definitely should be in wicg - we'll get it there
CSS Inline
==========
Should first/last baseline values of `vertical-align` belong to
`alignment-baseline` or separate longhand?
---------------------------------------------------------------
github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/861
dauwhe: No opinions
fantasai: Ditto
fantasai: This issue keeps coming up because I don't have any points
in favor or against either options, and I'd like to hear
why we should pick one over the other
fantasai: Do we have the board, do you want the [..] baselines,
[fantasai explains the problem]
fantasai: When aligning inline boxes to each other, you first match
corresponding baselines, then you shift if there's an
offset
fantasai: Once one of those has multiple lines of text in it,
do we use first or last? We wanted to add keywords to
choose.
fantasai: Do we put it in it's own property,
align-baseline-preference, and it cascades independently?
fantasai: Or do we merge it with alignment-baseline, which chooses
the type of baseline (alphabetic, mathematical,
ideographic, hanging)?
AmeliaBR: Reminder: long hands exist for legacy compat. So svg had
alignment-baseline, baseline-shift, css had
vertical-align...they describe the same functionality but
behave slightly differently
AmeliaBR: ..., adding new features to the longhand, when it's just
for compat, seems questionable. Also, not sure how first/
last would work in SVG. I don't see benefit there
[fantasai outlines things on the easel]
fantasai: We can't just add values to the vertical-align shorthand:
they need to be part of a longhand, too. So if there's a
reason to choose one over the other, it'll help us resolve
AmeliaBR: New property may not be used
fantasai: Related issue: from the MATH ML folks, they want to take
the baseline not from the first or last item, but from a
specific item
[See https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1339 ]
fantasai: So that ties in a little bit with this. We don't have a
proposal, but we have an idea we should do it. So that
might tie into we end up with another that helps us solve
this as well.
AmeliaBR: I suppose the value of a new property is that vertical
align is already supported with current functionality
AmeliaBR: you may end up with duplication anyway
fantasai: Does anyone want to think about it more, or push it off to
later?
dbaron: I can imagine there's reasons you want them separate,
unknown how important they are. Consider multiple
languages [...]
fantasai: Alright, we have a reason, we can resolve the issue!
dbaron: I'm not convinced anyone will want to do this, but it does
seem like a good thing to do
dbaron: You might want to set alignment-baseline as a function of
the language without messing with the first/last choice set
for other reasons
AmeliaBR: Resolve to make a new longhand property
astearns: We figure the name out later
fantasai: No matter how silly, make suggestions in IRC, we'll
evaluate later
<astearns> best-baseline
<dauwhe> good-baseline | better-baseline | best-baseline
<TabAtkins> west-baseline
<AmeliaBR> baseline-line
Rossen: Okay, any other opinions that can top dbaron's?
Rossen: Anyone object to dbaron's proposal? or oppose?
Rossen: No objections. Resolved.
astearns: So, dbaron, could you put your actual suggestion into
resolve line
dbaron: The question was a boolean, do we want a separate prop or not
RESOLVED: We'll add a separate property for this
astearns: Great
fantasai: Thank you
Houdini <3 Text
===============
Scribe: emilio
Houdini and text layout
-----------------------
github: https://github.com/w3c/css-houdini-drafts/issues/854
myles: So, houdini has a lot of stuff, and I think everything is
things that browsers do already, which is cool
myles: There's one of these things that is not in houdini so far,
which is text
myles: so there's a chance that authors are going to want text layout
myles: There's a lot of ways this could go. Text is complicated, and
different to other parts of houdini, in the sense that (a)
it's pretty easy to get wrong and (b) if it is, users will be
misled and confused
myles: It's easy to get it wrong when things like how BiDi works
should work by default, we don't want authors to have to
remember how to do these
myles: There's a bunch of things like that listed in the issue
myles: so I wanted to discuss how should we approach such an API to
avoid causing pain
myles: A strawman proposal just to get the discussion started would
be a region-like API, where your content flows from one box
to the other, and regular CSS properties apply in that box
myles: That'd be very high level. Another approach would be to
expose glyph indices and fonts and let the author place all
of them
myles: I think that'd be bad
<fantasai> +1 to that being bad
myles: So, there are these two extremes, these high-level things,
and there's this low-level thing which we can agree it's a
bad idea. There's a range in there that we should figure out
AmeliaBR: (summarizing her comment in the issue)
AmeliaBR: (https://github.com/w3c/css-houdini-drafts/issues/854#issuecomment-459146355)
AmeliaBR: There's a lot of steps, like [...], that we need to break
this down into.
AmeliaBR: Within all the individual steps which happen during text
layout, we need to figure out which of them authors want
to customize. One of them could be justification
AmeliaBR: other things like bidi unicode stuff we don't want to ever
expose
AmeliaBR: We could expose (though maybe trickier) glyph selection
(sounds scary, but there's lot of fun stuff you could do
with OT glyph selections instead of having to create a new
font because you want to create a space-maximizing layout)
AmeliaBR: That's something that people may want but that is easy to
get wrong / break
AmeliaBR: Also, the steps are very dependent on one another, so we
need to come up with a nice model of the data that goes
through the pipeline if we want authors to insert their
custom stuff
fantasai: This is not just a sequential pipeline, some of the steps
interact with each other. An excellent line-breaking
engine will account for glyph selections and such
fantasai: so you can't just break that up into ordered steps
iank: I think we agree in spirit with myles, we don't want to get
into the business of bidi resolution or glyph selection or such
iank: We may want to get smarter about where to break and such, but
not atm
iank: The current model in the spec is a box where you run layout
giving the available width and you get back an inline box /
line box fragment
iank: You can re-request that if the resulting height is too big for
your layout
iank: Some layouts require the available width to change on a
per-line-box basis
iank: We want to prototype that
myles: So, I also agree that we mostly agree
myles: The idea of giving available width works well if the area has
vertical end, but if you're not a perfectly vertical
container it doesn't, it's not clear how much we care for
shapes in Houdini
iank: We care about shapes a lot
iank: In our engine we do at most two layout passes to avoid shapes
iank: which sort of fits in this model
myles: I think doing two layouts is unfortunate, describing geometry
would be nicer
iank: That'd be difficult, a lot of the use cases that devs want to
place a line depending on how the previous line has been laid
out
iank: I think describing all the geometry upfront would be limiting
iank: One of the examples we want to work is an arbitrary line grid
iank: The avail width of the next line really depends on the line
height of the previous line box
dauwhe: My industry is very interested in using Houdini to improve
justification / hyphenation, since the browsers have
different requirements
florian: I share the concern that this is important and hard to let
people do a lot of random stuff
florian: but Dave shared examples about hyphenation and
justification, and there are many more of the same kind of
when you consider i18n where a lot of effects needs a lot
of low-level access
florian: For example, Japanese people may want to increment distance
between some glyphs or such
florian: or implement stuff that isn't in browsers yet
florian: The approach of getting line boxes doesn't get far enough,
but I'm not sure how to get far enough but not being
dangerous
myles: You're right, but we have competing desires, letting authors
implement nice effects, and making pages legible, the latter
has been historically more of a priority
<fantasai> +1 to ensuring legibility
fantasai: Side comment, about justification and the model that is in
Houdini, which I agree is the right one to get started.
For justification would it make sense to return the
fragment without filling the available width, but also let
the user set it to be wider and that'd trigger
justification and alignment
fantasai: That way I can see where it fits much more easily, and
position it more easily
fantasai: and justification and alignment properties would work the
same way it works when you place it in a bigger size.
Justification would still be in control of the user-agent
myles: dauwhe, when you said for example you wanted to improve
justifications, is ^ what you were referring to?
dauwhe: I think we want more
Rossen: Thanks for bringing the issue, and I'm glad it's getting
more and more traction. The one common theme that I see so
far is that we are trying to get the "custom" part of layout
out of custom layout. Everything that's been discussed so
far how to force people to do the thing what we're already
doing and tweak it a bit here and there
Rossen: The nice thing of custom layout is that we're not giving
restrictions for where people to position boxes in the block
layout case, but when it comes around text we through our
hands in the air and say it's too hard, and I don't agree
with that
TabAtkins: We have existence proof that every single custom layout
has done bidi wrong.
Rossen: It seems to me that we're talking about levels of
customizability
Rossen: one where you expose bidi and shaping at every breaking
opportunity, the other where you give it a box and we'll do
the layout inside
Rossen: I'd be interested to go and explore the options in the
middle which would allow most custom layouts that people want
Rossen: so that we're still not insisting on that rigid one box
Rossen: We're also assuming that we're doing inline layout the way
browsers do it now, but maybe my lines are spiral, or I want
to go on top of floats
Rossen: Let's not try to take the custom part of layout outside
of css
dbaron: I just wanted to bring up another use case that hasn't come
up today
dbaron: I think having a low level API is very important for
minority languages
[general nodding]
dbaron: Gecko has shipped graphite support
<dbaron> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphite_(SIL)
dbaron: One of the things it does is let languages that have shaping
requirements that aren't in browsers do it in fonts instead
dbaron: Another approach for this would be a low-level JS API using
houdini
<dholbert> (I believe "glat" is one of these graphite font tables
that dbaron is referencing)
<dauwhe> "For example, it may be the case that a minority language
is tonal, while the national language is not, and the
orthographic solution involves using the standard writing
system with some extra diacritics to indicate tone. Or the
minority language might have a set of sounds characterized
by a certain linguistic feature, such as aspiration or
breathiness, that are not present in the national language,
and the desire is to add to the standard orthography a set
of variant characters to represent these variant sounds."
dbaron: I think that's a potential real use case
skk: From Japanese digital books perspective, more precise Ruby
would be amazing
skk: We'd like more control over ruby text positioning
<xfq> more than what ruby-position/merge/align currently provides?
dauwhe: Responding to the philosophical point, being able to explain
and expose all the platform features?
Rossen: It is, what I'm saying is, let's not prevent that
Rossen: So that we can avoid limiting the inner pinnings of how
things work. Said that, we want to open the engine so that
we don't need to implement all the stuff people want, that's
the fun part of it.
Rossen: We've never said "and we don't want to let you do this
because it's hard"
Rossen: why?
myles: If your layout is quite not what the author intended, the text
still exists. For box layout, bad layout is wrong for
everyone; for text, bad layout can be completely unreadable
only for some
Rossen: If it's unreadable it's unreadable because of me
fantasai: It may be because somebody typed something you (the Houdini
author) didn't expect
fantasai: and you didn't care of thinking of those users
fantasai: and those users are our users
Rossen: That's my problem, those users are going to complain to me
koji: From my POV I think "don't do bidi and don't you your own
thing" is more "we want to start from simple things", and as
we can confirm it performs properly and works we can extend
further
koji: but I'm not very confident that JS running through glyphs is
performant enough, so box-level layout seems simpler
koji: so re. Rossen's point, we're not against, but we want to start
from the simple thing
AmeliaBR: I agree with Rossen and dauwhe, the point of Houdini is
being able to tweak one of the little things the browser
does without having to re-implement the browser, and we
want to let authors do what they want
AmeliaBR: You can do some sort of custom layout with SVG, but
probably badly. We should let authors do what they want
without forcing to reimplement what they don't want to
tweak
AmeliaBR: I think we should prioritize our work to start with the
safest things to change and isolate
<dauwhe> I want to tweak what the browser does, not build my own
rendering engine
<skk> +1 to dauwhe
<heycam> Agree with AmeliaBR -- we should bias towards coming up
with APIs that allow users to benefit automatically from
the browser implemented bidi, complex text shaping, etc.
features that the author doesn't want to reimplement
<heycam> make it harder for them to accidentally not support those
things
florian: So, I think when we say is "this is too hard", this is not
saying that devs in this room are smarter than all of them.
But very little people have resources to implement all the
complexities right
florian: Very few people have the business justification to deal
with all languages
florian: Minority languages is where this is interesting and
dangerous
florian: The low level things that enable minority languages to work
on the web, are also what enable companies to write
western-only layouts that don't work with other minority
languages that browsers support today
florian: In the process of creating an api that's good enough to
support minority languages we'd have created the chance of
Chinese pages where you only can write in Chinese, or
English pages that allow you to only work in English
florian: So if you force people to rebuild text-layout itself, they
will not do the right thing, and we'd have disabled some
languages instead of enabling others
florian: So I'm more on the side of caution, and making sure that
everything we add to this API is a thing we can tweak
<fremy> very good point florian
florian: And yes, people will break stuff for their own customers,
but we'll also break the fact that the web is multilingual
fantasai: I think koji and AmeliaBR and florian said everything I
wanted to say
myles: Most of my job is fixing bugs that the text experts in the
piece of software they created because they only spoke English
myles: There's tons of places in WebKit where there are assumptions
because it was coded by English-only speakers
myles: I agree we should investigate the middle parts in the
spectrum, but I think we disagree with the criteria for
success
myles: I think text is different, where if you get it wrong it may
work for you but not for your users
myles: An approach where we take everything the browser does and
making it scriptable is not the highest priority
myles: Raising use cases is a good way to prioritize, the idea of
tweaking specific parts of the browser is great and makes
total sense
myles: Picking specific use cases and filing in holes is probably
the right idea, creating a low level platform and tell people
to write it yourself is probably not
<florian> +111!1!1
<fantasai> myles++
myles: Minority languages is a very interesting case, apart from
Graphite we also have a similar thing with AAT
myles: I wish we could find a way to solve that problem in a way
where safety is preserved
Rossen: I see a lot of passion and interest, zero reasons for us to
stop working on this. A lot of things said will hopefully be
taken into account as we move forward. One thing that I
wanted to make sure that the record reflects what I said.
Rossen: I wasn't suggesting to start exposing the far end, like
glyphs
Rossen: but as we go forward we should start walking towards the
end, I just want to ensure that we don't preclude us from
going forward
Rossen: Myles, is there something that you think it wasn't discussed?
myles: I think the next thing is gathering use cases, so we're done
iank: To try to wrap up, is there anything inside of the current
version of the spec that particularly scares you?
myles: My biggest concern is about encouraging authors to do layouts
in loops
myles: where they try over and over, but I understand such an
approach allows for dynamic use-cases, so I guess the
question is to which side we fall
iank: I think we agree, but we don't want to limit people which is
why we chose this approach
myles: We heard a lot of use-cases in this discussion that aren't
covered by the API, so maybe it's too early to create APIs
Rossen: We have a proposal and we have a lot of discussions, let's
not say yay or nay
dauwhe: I wanted to make a point regarding the responsibility about
us making software for our use case vs. browsers
dauwhe: We publish English and Spanish, I don't think there should
be obligation for us to handle vertical or rtl
* dauwhe admits that some of our books have snippets of Arabic,
Hebrew, Japanese, Chinese, and MathML :)
AmeliaBR: I'm glad myles brought this discussion
AmeliaBR: One thing that myles and fantasai said is that text was
different because it made stuff unreadable
AmeliaBR: I don't think that's true, there are lots of ways you can
break content in another ways
AmeliaBR: I agree with Rossen that the developers of the websites
are responsible for being user friendly and would be the
ones to pay the price. I don't think that this proposed
ways which could break websites are worse that other ways
to break stuff with CSS
fantasai: I think it is actually worse
<astearns> I disagree with AmeliaBR's comment, and agree with
fantasai. Bad text layout has uniquely bad ways of making
content inaccessible
<fremy> iank myles: I do have some ideas on how to progressively
enhance the current api to cover more cases that have been
discussed here without starting from scratch and would like
your opinion, so maybe we can talk about this during break?
or in the github issue if not.
Rossen: This is not the end of the discussion, but some of the
starting points
Rossen: We need go back and work more on this, we should keep
participating passionately
Rossen: Next steps is engaging in the specs
Rossen: So go help iank ;)
iank: I'd love that
CSS Text
========
Allow for paragraph-level line breaking
---------------------------------------
github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/672
myles: Similar to houdini, there are lots of different ways to do
line-breaking. Houdini solves some of them. Other ways people
want to do line breaking are some fancy book-like
line-breaking
myles: ine-breaking on the web is greedy, and doing something
slower but higher quality is a longstanding request
myles: I proposed a value for this, which got to the spec and then
got removed because of lack of consensus
myles: I'd like to see which opinions for this
myles: it's a very high-level switch
<xfq> will the behavior be UA-defined?
florian: I want to know which one is the editing value
florian: I want one of the values to be stable when you type
<astearns> default is 'wrap' which is stable
myles: Right now the default is stable in every browser
florian: Not for print [PDF renderes like PrinceXML and AntennaHouse]
myles: You don't type in print preview
myles: I don't think you need another value, we already have it
florian: I think there should be a stable value
myles: I think reflecting reality and saying that auto should be
stable is fine
fantasai: I think the initial value should allow the UA to do
whatever
dauwhe: If the property is added to iBooks I'll add it everywhere
fantasai: I think iBooks should just add it to its default UA
stylesheet
[ compat? ]
dauwhe: I think you want to change it in existing books too
dauwhe: Having the text break better is just going to be a win
eae: I think this is a great idea, I'm a bit concerned that if we
don't define what pretty does we'd get interop issue, so we
should try to explain what pretty would do
<xfq> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/803 is the related
issue for the algorithm ("pretty")
myles: In the issue I listed a dozen different criteria
myles: So describe it explicitly is probably not realistic, do you
think agreeing on the goals is fine?
eae: yeah, I think that's ok
fantasai, dauwhe, myles: I think it's important to _not_ get compat
<AmeliaBR> There will always be perf trade-offs, so that it makes
sense that a print book will get prettier `pretty`
results than a browser on a low-CPU device.
heycam: I was going to make eae's point, though maybe I'm a bit more
worried about the compat impact, I don't we can change the
default algorithm because of compat, why wouldn't that
happen with `pretty`?
astearns: The current algorithm is not that interoperable
myles: Also, this is an opt-in
heycam: Once we have this, why would we not expect authors to just
use it all the time. Why would they not do that?
myles: It's the same answer for text-rendering: optimizespeed vs.
optimizelegibility
fremy: It's mostly useless
myles, AmeliaBR: it's not
heycam: I don't think people will think about speed, and many people
will just use it without thinking about it, having a perf
impact
astearns: I think that's the reason for the auto value
astearns: so that the UA can change it
heycam: I'm skeptical about changing line-breaking (by default)
myles: I'd like to keep the discussion less about the existence of
auto
dauwhe: I think there are a lot of trade-offs. Browsers are optimized
for speed right now, and taking any step to opt in to better
systems is going to be great regardless of interop
dauwhe: text layout is so sensitive that there's never going to be
interop
myles: I want to resolve to put this value back in
Rossen: Objections?
florian: I want to make sure we have the three values, including
stable.
fantasai: I think we should rename it, but no objection
fantasai: I'm a bit concerned that we are going to add another
switch that does nothing
fantasai: but if people feel strongly I won't object
fremy: not an objection either but we need a better definition on
what it does
RESOLVED: Add the value back in
fantasai: Are we adding stable?
myles: There are three values: auto, balance and this new thing
fantasai: I object to the multi-line name
myles: Proposals?
fantasai: 'pretty' sounds good to me
fantasai: It's what we used to discuss it here
RESOLVED: add the stable value
Received on Thursday, 16 May 2019 22:56:51 UTC