- From: Dael Jackson <daelcss@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 07:21:02 -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 Sizing
----------
- The plan for issue #3731 (How should inline-axis intrinsic sizing
work for 'fit-content' and 'fit-content()'?) is to select option
#2 (reverse-compute them on their own, where a box with
max-content size S and width: P (a percentage, expressed so 1.0
is 100%) has a max-content contribution to its parent of S/P.
This prevents overlap in block-like layout, but isn't sufficient
when there's more than one thing per line.) but the appropriate
people weren't on the call to resolve.
- RESOLVED: The resolved value of min-size: auto is 0 when there is
no box (Issue #3557)
- RESOLVED: Republish WD of css-sizing
Media Queries 5
---------------
- RESOLVED: Publish Media Queries 5 as FPWD, with a pending privacy
& security section & the resolved edit re UA stylesheets
CSS Overscroll
--------------
- RESOLVED: Publish css-overscroll-behavior-1 FPWD
CSS Images
----------
- RESOLVED: Make spec match browsers on color hints / positions
(Issue #3931)
CSS Fonts
---------
- RESOLVED: Add `font-size: xxx-large` to Fonts level 4 (Issue #3907)
- Issue #3194 (Font fetching in anonymous mode makes it impossible
to link to fonts behind authentication) needs further discussion
on GitHub and those interested are encouraged to comment there.
CSS A11y & Display
------------------
- Some browsers have implemented the changes for display:contents
( https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/commit/10d721ddefe82730a712b392eaf8695c75764e30
)
and those that have not are encouraged to do so.
CSS Values
----------
- RESOLVED: No change to URL serialization for fragment-only URLS
(Issue #3195)
===== FULL MINUTES BELOW ======
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2019May/0007.html
Present:
Rachel Andrew
Rossen Atanassov
Tab Atkins
Amelia Bellamy-Royds
Christian Biesinger
Dave Cramer
Benjamin De Cock
Elika Etemad
Simon Fraser
Brad Kemper
Myles Maxfield
Anton Prowse
Melanie Richards
Florian Rivoal
Jen Simmons
Majid Valipour
Regrets:
Daniel Bates
Oriol Brufau
Emilio Cobos Álvarez
Dael Jackson
Alan Stearns
Greg Whitworth
Scribe: AmeliaBR
CSS Sizing
==========
How should inline-axis intrinsic sizing work for 'fit-content' and
'fit-content()'?
------------------------------------------------------------------
github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3731
Rossen: The topic was introduced by David. He sent regrets. Who can
talk?
fantasai: Oriol posted new comments on GitHub. I can introduce, but
want to follow offline.
fantasai: Issue is when argument is a percentage, that depends on
the container. Cyclic resolution.
fantasai: One option is to ignore components with percentage. Other
is to treat as zero or auto, same as in other places.
fantasai: I will probably pick the second & integrate in spec. Let
me know in the issue if you have concerns.
Rossen: I'm inclined to agree with being consistent with how
percentages behave elsewhere.
The resolved value of min-size: auto should also be 0 when there is
no box
-------------------------------------------------------------------
github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3557
fantasai: Pretty straightforward. Wanted to cover elements with
display: none, their children, and also elements with
display: contents
Rossen: Resolving to 0 makes the most sense. Any disagreements?
RESOLVED: The resolved value of min-size: auto is 0 when there is no
box
css-sizing updated WD
---------------------
Rossen: With those decisions, can we make an update. It's been a
while.
Rossen: fantasai, do you want to make those edits we just resolved?
fantasai: Or we can resolve on the edits that are already there. Or
wait until I've made the edits.
Rossen: It's just a WD. We can always republish if there are further
changes. Lets republish with that one change, don't need to
wait on the other issue.
fantasai: OK.
RESOLVED: Republish WD of css-sizing
Media Queries 5 FPWD
====================
<fantasai> https://drafts.csswg.org/mediaqueries-5/#contents
florian: There are two pending edits that have been resolved & I
still need to add. Privacy & security section & resolved
change with UA stylesheet.
florian: I am also wondering whether some of these should be moved
up to MQ 4.
fantasai: We should just push level 5 faster.
florian: But some parts of 4 aren't stable. Difference in maturity
isn't clear.
Rossen: Either way, we need a WD to start discussion. These are good
points, but are you willing to make those edits soon if we
resolve on FPWD with them included?
Rossen: Then we can discuss later about shuffling between 4 and 5.
Rossen: I don't want to move anything from 4 to 5 when 5 isn't yet a
FPWD.
florian: Most of what's in 5 was previously in 4 and had been
deferred. Some are new.
Rossen: So proposed is to publish Media Queries 5 as FPWD, once a
privacy & security section is added & the resolved edit is
made.
Rossen: Waiting longer would just put more work on florian
Rossen: Any objections?
RESOLVED: publish Media Queries 5 as FPWD, with a pending privacy &
security section & the resolved edit re UA stylesheets
css-overscroll-behavior-1 FPWD
==============================
majidvp: We discussed at F2F, there were some concerns about
longhands. I checked with astearns about IPR and it's OK,
because of CG commitments, but I think I've addressed the
edits.
<florian> sounds good to me
majidvp: There are two implementations already, in Chrome and
Firefox.
Rossen: So are you asking for FPWD or CR? A fast path to CR?
majidvp: Yes.
Rossen: And you say that you've already confirmed that you don't
expect major IP concerns. So we can move forward with FPWD.
Rossen: Any objections/concerns?
florian: Ship it!
RESOLVED: Publish css-overscroll-behavior-1 FPWD
CSS Images
===========
Scribe: fantasai
Color stop fixup: do interpolation hints function as positioned color
stops?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3931
AmeliaBR: This issue brought up with someone trying to implement
gradients with color-hint syntax
AmeliaBR: His interpretation wasn't matching what browsers do
AmeliaBR: Issue is to clarify algorithm in spec to match what
browsers do
AmeliaBR: All the browsers, or at least majority, all do the same
thing
AmeliaBR: This has to do with color stops
AmeliaBR: color-stop consists of color and position
AmeliaBR: position can be implicit
AmeliaBR: evenly divide between known positions
AmeliaBR: color hints are different though
AmeliaBR: color hints affect the allocation of implicit stop
positions
AmeliaBR: Pave the cowpath / match reality request
TabAtkins: While I find the behavior is slightly weird
TabAtkins: but would have agreed with issue author initially
TabAtkins: Since everyone agrees, let's just spec that
florian: Curious about what's weird about it, but if we have
interop, doesn't really matter
TabAtkins: Weird because hint isn't a color stop, it is just a hint
about how to interpret colors between
TabAtkins: So find it odd that it would affect positions, but eh.
AmeliaBR: Purpose was to adjust easing between adjacent stops
AmeliaBR: But because hint is expressed as a fixed position, there's
interpretation that it's a position value
AmeliaBR: Same person that opened this opened another issue about
other ways to talk about gradient easing
AmeliaBR: That's an interesting way of eventually creating a more
logical approach in the future
AmeliaBR: while not conflicting with current browser implementations
AmeliaBR: So are interesting length issues if people want to follow
up
florian: I'm sold
Rossen: Anyone else?
Rossen: Objections?
RESOLVED: Make spec match browsers on color hints / positions
AmeliaBR: One more point: editors are Tab, fantasai, Lea
AmeliaBR: Interested in making edits or should I draft up?
TabAtkins: I can do edits, but if you want to draft something happy
to review/accept
CSS Fonts
=========
Scribe: AmeliaBR (with fantasai scribing her comments)
font-size:-webkit-xxx-large
---------------------------
github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3907
Myles: We have various semantic size keywords in the spec. Webkit
has a prefixed version, since the beginning of Webkit, for
xxx-large. It'd be nice to remove the prefix.
florian: Do you think this is useful? Or is it a compat issue?
myles: It's useful.
florian: But there's no need to preserve the prefix?
myles: We'd keep it in webkit, but I don't think we need to
standardize the prefix.
Rossen: And worth mentioning that Gecko has a similar prefix &
emilio says it sounds reasonable.
fantasai: We should add it to Fonts 4.
Rossen: Any objections?
RESOLVED: Add `font-size: xxx-large` to Fonts level 4
Font fetching in anonymous mode makes it impossible to link to fonts
behind authentication
--------------------------------------------------------------------
github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3194
myles: Anyone knowledgeable about this? I don't understand it fully.
florian: I can introduce, but I'm not an expert either.
Rossen: This issue has been open 6 months. Can we at least
acknowledge that this is an issue we should be trying to
address?
Rossen: We need to distinguish whether it's difficult or whether we
don't care. Encourage engagement on GitHub.
florian: The font spec requires that when we fetch the font we use
anonymous mode for fetching. If the font (along with the
rest of the website) requires authentication cookies, then
the font is blocked because anonymous makes it look like
you're not logged in.
florian: Did we do this on purpose?
florian: If not can we fix it? Because it's causing problems
AmeliaBR: This ties into discussion on url modifiers and other
loading modifiers in CSS
AmeliaBR: I think it's something we can fix given we'll have a way
to control cross-origin authentication level
AmeliaBR: We've talked about upgrading image() to use CORS with or
without authentication
AmeliaBR: Another way is for fonts and a few others that we do
currently say Anonymous
AmeliaBR: A cross-origin modifier can be used to upgrade to fetch
with authentication
florian: Something missing to me is use case for putting the fonts
behind the login
AmeliaBR: You covered the use case: when your entire website is
behind authentication
Rossen: My ask is that people interested in the area please engage
with the issue on GH and let's see if we can make some
progress there
* fantasai proposes agenda+ f2f
CSS A11y and Display
====================
display: contents and a11y
--------------------------
github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3040
fantasai: We added warning to the spec from this issue. But we're
still missing browser fixes.
florian: I think Chrome has fixed the accessibility tree issue, but
still not focusability.
rachelandrew: Yes, Chrome is working on it.
fremy: Yes, issue is the focusability. So it's not keyboard
accessible.
Rossen: In summary, Chrome has made progress but not done yet. Any
other asks beyond nudging WebKit and Mozilla?
jensimmons: Mozilla has shipped it per spec. It's Webkit and Chrome.
jensimmons: This is truly, deeply important that we get this fixed.
florian: So, it's fixed in Mozilla?
jensimmons: Yes. But that's not the main reason for the fix. It's
that this is broken for now & we need to recommend that
people don't use it.
fremy: I'm not sure it's entirely fixed in Firefox when it comes to
focusability.
<fantasai> Current note in the spec fwiw:
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/commit/10d721ddefe82730a712b392eaf8695c75764e30
<fremy> link: https://tabatkins.github.io/bikeshed/ (try to
tab-navigate the table of contents on the left)
Rossen: Let's not go too deep into who has or hasn't done what. The
point is to elevate this issue & get people to raise it in
your team.
jensimmons: If there are still issues in Firefox, file a bug &
please let me know.
<rachelandrew> this is the Fx issue
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1500958
CSS Values
==========
Serialization of fragment URLs in image properties
--------------------------------------------------
github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3195
TabAtkins: The question from heycam was whether we want to serialize
image url fragments the way we do other fragment-only
URLs. The spec currently doesn't distinguish between
image types and id reference types.
TabAtkins: I think it's a theoretical issue. We can't refer to a
fragment-only image. I suggest no change, keep the
serialization rules simple.
AmeliaBR: I agree, because discussion of eventually allowing SVG
paint servers to be used as image types
AmeliaBR: In that case we would want them to behave as fragment URLs
AmeliaBR: Same as referring to mask or filter with a fragment ID
AmeliaBR: If we had separate serialization rules and then introduced
that, it would become a huge mess
Rossen: OK, hearing even more agreement
RESOLVED: No change to URL serialization for fragment-only URLS
Rossen: Any other items to discuss?
Rossen: Ok, we'll reconvene next week.
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2019 11:21:53 UTC