IRC log of css on 2009-04-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:57:31 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #css
15:57:31 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-css-irc
15:57:36 [fantasai]: Bert, the proposal was to copy wording directly from dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-background
15:57:42 [dbaron]: dbaron has joined #css
15:57:48 [glazou]: Zakim, this will be Style
15:57:48 [Zakim]: ok, glazou; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
15:57:51 [Zakim]: Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
15:57:53 [Zakim]: + +1.858.216.aaaa
15:58:01 [fantasai]: Bert, your edits for issue 108 doesn't make counter-increment: none 3 foo 4; invalid
15:58:05 [plinss]: zakim, +1.858.216 is me
15:58:05 [Zakim]: +plinss; got it
15:58:12 [fantasai]: Bert, it just says authors must not write that
15:58:19 [annevk]: annevk has left #css
15:58:23 [fantasai]: Bert, since it doesn't say it's invalid, there's no requirement that UAs ignore such declarations
15:58:41 [fantasai]: also I'm not seeing that wording in a post to www-style...
15:58:51 [Bert]: One at a time, I'm still looking at 102...
15:59:18 [Zakim]: +David_Baron
15:59:20 [Zakim]: -David_Baron
15:59:20 [Zakim]: +David_Baron
15:59:50 [anne]: Zakim, passcode?
15:59:50 [Zakim]: the conference code is 78953 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), anne
16:00:13 [Zakim]: +??P26
16:00:20 [anne]: Zakim, ??P26 is me
16:00:24 [Zakim]: +anne; got it
16:01:55 [Zakim]: +??P8
16:02:00 [Zakim]: -??P8
16:02:43 [Zakim]: +??P10
16:02:50 [Zakim]: +Cesar_Acebal
16:02:51 [fantasai]: Zakim, ??P10 is fantasai
16:02:51 [Zakim]: +fantasai; got it
16:02:58 [CesarAcebal]: CesarAcebal has joined #css
16:03:43 [Zakim]: +Bert
16:04:59 [Zakim]: + +47.21.65.aabb
16:05:12 [howcome]: howcome has joined #css
16:05:19 [dbaron]: Zakim, aabb is howcome
16:05:19 [Zakim]: +howcome; got it
16:05:24 [dbaron]: Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:05:24 [Zakim]: On the phone I see plinss, David_Baron, anne, fantasai, Cesar_Acebal, Bert, howcome
16:06:18 [emilyw]: emilyw has joined #css
16:06:45 [glazou]: glazou has joined #css
16:06:53 [Zakim]: +??P31
16:07:03 [emilyw]: zakim, P31 is me
16:07:03 [Zakim]: sorry, emilyw, I do not recognize a party named 'P31'
16:07:10 [Zakim]: +[Microsoft]
16:07:27 [dbaron]: Zakim, ??P31 is emilyw
16:07:27 [Zakim]: +emilyw; got it
16:07:29 [emilyw]: zakim, ??P31 is me
16:07:29 [Zakim]: I already had ??P31 as emilyw, emilyw
16:07:58 [sylvaing]: sylvaing has joined #css
16:08:07 [sylvaing]: Zakim, [Microsoft] has sylvaing
16:08:07 [Zakim]: +sylvaing; got it
16:08:53 [sylvaing]: scribe:sylvain
16:08:56 [sylvaing]: scribenick:sylvaing
16:09:14 [sylvaing]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Apr/0227.html
16:09:17 [sylvaing]: Page counters
16:09:29 [sylvaing]: hakon: this sounds complicated to me
16:09:32 [sylvaing]: elika: nooooo
16:09:47 [Zakim]: +Melinda_Grant
16:09:53 [melinda]: melinda has joined #CSS
16:10:01 [sylvaing]: elika: defining interactions between counters does complicate things
16:10:30 [glazou]: sorry, I'm totally unable to call, my phone and SIP are both dead at this time
16:10:50 [fantasai]: Skype!
16:10:58 [sylvaing]: melinda: if we don't define counter interactions, we can't handle certain scenarios....
16:11:00 [glazou]: fantasai: I tried...
16:11:06 [fantasai]: s/nooooo/agreed/
16:11:46 [sylvaing]: melinda: there were issues with using section numbers in document headers
16:12:39 [sylvaing]: fantasai: use cases that were not working without counter interactions: footnote counter that resets on every page but incremented by elements in the document
16:12:39 [fantasai]: fantasai: no, that was covered already
16:12:48 [Zakim]: + +95089aacc
16:13:21 [sylvaing]: fantasai: also chapter-level counters that increase with every page in the chapter but reset at the next chapter (?)
16:13:37 [sylvaing]: hakon: agree with the footnote scenario, that is important. not sure whether it needs to be so complex
16:14:25 [fantasai]: dbaron: I'm surprised it's so simple, given how complicated some of the counters stuff is :)
16:14:55 [sylvaing]: plinss: aside from general complexity, are there specific issues to be addressed ?
16:15:29 [glazou_]: glazou_ has joined #css
16:17:57 [sylvaing]: hakon: proposal: for any named counter, only allow interaction for the oldest one
16:18:12 [sylvaing]: fantasai: counter name hiding is not the complex issue but the nesting of elements
16:18:47 [sylvaing]: dbaron: I haven't looked at the proposal yet.
16:18:50 [fantasai]: and multiple break points
16:18:52 [fantasai]: at the same page break
16:18:58 [sylvaing]: melinda: we should take a week to think about this further.
16:19:45 [sylvaing]: fantasai: this proposal is actually the second iteration (after melinda shot down the first one)
16:20:05 [sylvaing]: plinss: can we elaborate on how the proposal evolved to its current stage ?
16:20:55 [sylvaing]: fantasai describes the proposal's rules
16:21:10 [sylvaing]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Apr/0227.html
16:22:19 [dbaron]: It's worth being careful that the multiple break point rule doesn't kick in when an element crosses three pages.
16:22:55 [sylvaing]: fantasai: first rule deals wit the general simple case; second rule with multiple break points
16:24:34 [sylvaing]: fantasai: I would really like to hear from Michael Day(Antenna House) and David Baron on this proposal
16:25:01 [sylvaing]: melinda: we have implementations that do what we want, the spec should match them
16:25:15 [sylvaing]: fantasai: I would postpone this discussion until we hear back from AH and Prince
16:25:22 [sylvaing]: hakon: sounds good
16:25:42 [fantasai]: s/(/,/
16:25:44 [fantasai]: s/)/,/
16:26:17 [sylvaing]: hakon will ping Antenna House and Prince on the issue
16:26:42 [sylvaing]: plinss: we can put this back on next week's agenda or the week after
16:26:52 [sylvaing]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Apr/0228.html
16:26:55 [sylvaing]: Borders & Backgrounds
16:27:02 [plinss]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Apr/0228.html
16:27:14 [sylvaing]: fantasai: i'm waiting for feedback on most of these open issues
16:28:33 [sylvaing]: fantasai: we can probably close issue 28 as no change
16:28:58 [sylvaing]: fantasai: people seem to like color fallback so we may keep the feature but change the syntax
16:29:09 [sylvaing]: fantasai: only two conclusions I have at this point
16:29:23 [sylvaing]: hakon: I'd like to find a way to clip the center image
16:29:49 [sylvaing]: fantasai: none of the authors that have given feedback so far think this is worth making border-image more complex
16:29:56 [sylvaing]: hakon: but i'm an author too :)
16:30:43 [sylvaing]: hakon: this is so easy to do now; without it you need to do Photoshop work
16:30:56 [sylvaing]: hakon to look at the proposal again...
16:31:07 [szilles]: szilles has joined #css
16:31:39 [sylvaing]: bert: I prefer simplicity so I would not mind dropping the feature
16:32:08 [sylvaing]: hakon: it is a slight increase in complexity that saves a frequent work item
16:32:35 [sylvaing]: hakon: in fact, why not specify when you want to keep the center image i.e. the default should be to clip it
16:33:17 [fantasai]: s/dropping/not adding/
16:33:30 [sylvaing]: hakon: the default today is that unless you use a manual tool you're not really getting a border anymore
16:33:58 [sylvaing]: bert: but how do you define the slicing of that image into 9 proper pieces without some editing work
16:34:07 [sylvaing]: fantasai suggests a straw poll
16:34:51 [sylvaing]: plinss: if you force the author to use transparency, you force them to choose a particular format
16:35:19 [sylvaing]: plinss: another use case, the author want the same image to be used in two places, one of which includes the center but not the other
16:36:21 [sylvaing]: hakon: this is not about graphical feature creep but the default behavior of this property
16:37:00 [Zakim]: +SteveZ
16:37:03 [sylvaing]: plinss: i'm not hearing consensus yet
16:37:21 [sylvaing]: hakon: we'll keep it as an issue
16:38:07 [fantasai]: Topic: 2.1
16:38:07 [fantasai]: http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1
16:38:16 [sylvaing]: column/page break discussion postponed so alexmog can participate
16:38:22 [fantasai]: fantasai: several action items open on Saloni, can we get those reassigned?
16:39:21 [sylvaing]: plinss: someone from msft ?
16:40:10 [fantasai]: ACTION: sylvain and arron to work on Saloni's 2.1 issues
16:40:10 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-140 - And arron to work on Saloni's 2.1 issues [on Sylvain Galineau - due 2009-04-22].
16:40:21 [fantasai]: http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-112
16:40:45 [plinss]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Apr/0099.html
16:40:58 [sylvaing]: fantasai: I'd like to adopt dbaron's proposal; it's straightforward
16:41:34 [dbaron]: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/tables.html#column-alignment
16:42:24 [sylvaing]: bert: what is the exact issue ?
16:42:43 [sylvaing]: dbaron: some people think this section means text-align applies to columns
16:43:08 [sylvaing]: dbaron: the text does not specify which elements the property applies to and the title implies that it may apply to table columns
16:43:23 [sylvaing]: fantasai: dbaron's proposal is to clearly disambiguate this
16:44:07 [sylvaing]: bert: change seems ok. but is not absolutely necessary
16:44:27 [sylvaing]: plinss, fantasai: editorial change. no conflict with implementations.
16:44:40 [sylvaing]: plinss: objections ?
16:45:00 [sylvaing]: szilles: no objection to the change, but not sure it fixes the problem
16:45:26 [sylvaing]: plinss: we're not changing any behavior just clarifying interpretation
16:46:45 [sylvaing]: RESOLVED: dbaron's proposal accepted (Issue-112)
16:46:48 [fantasai]: http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-113
16:47:03 [sylvaing]: fantasai: we discussed this at the F2F
16:48:14 [sylvaing]: I requested an && syntax operator to the values and units module and it was requested that we also add it to 2.1
16:48:55 [sylvaing]: hakon does not like having this in CSS3 values and units; should it go into 2.1 syntax ?
16:49:16 [sylvaing]: plinss: I have no issues with putting this in 2.1
16:49:38 [sylvaing]: bert: it doesn't hurt 2.1 since it's not used
16:49:51 [sylvaing]: bert: ...by 2.1
16:50:04 [sylvaing]: melinda: would we be able to qualify it ?
16:50:13 [sylvaing]: fantasai: editorial change, does not define a feature
16:50:16 [sylvaing]: hakon: agree
16:51:05 [sylvaing]: szilles: if this is an editorial change, a note clarifying that this notation is specified for completeness but unused
16:51:57 [sylvaing]: s/a note/i suggest a note
16:52:10 [emilyw]: emilyw has joined #css
16:53:45 [sylvaing]: szilles: it would helpful to have examples to describe it
16:53:54 [sylvaing]: s/helpful/be helpful
16:54:29 [sylvaing]: RESOLVED: add && to list of value syntax operators (http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-113)
16:55:00 [sylvaing]: szilles can do without the note but would like a clear usage example
16:56:12 [Zakim]: -David_Baron
16:56:17 [sylvaing]: discussion of 2.1 issues that need action items
16:56:49 [sylvaing]: plinss: we should ask people to process their issues; assign action items to unassigned issues next week
16:57:06 [Zakim]: -[Microsoft]
16:57:08 [Zakim]: -SteveZ
16:57:10 [Zakim]: -howcome
16:57:10 [Zakim]: - +95089aacc
16:57:11 [Zakim]: -plinss
16:57:12 [Zakim]: -Cesar_Acebal
16:57:12 [Zakim]: -anne
16:57:13 [Zakim]: -emilyw
16:57:15 [Zakim]: -fantasai
16:57:26 [Zakim]: -Bert
16:58:05 [Zakim]: -Melinda_Grant
16:58:06 [Zakim]: Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
16:58:08 [Zakim]: Attendees were +1.858.216.aaaa, plinss, David_Baron, anne, Cesar_Acebal, fantasai, Bert, +47.21.65.aabb, howcome, emilyw, sylvaing, Melinda_Grant, +95089aacc, SteveZ
16:59:11 [szilles]: szilles has left #css
17:05:00 [fantasai]: Bert, let me know when I should do another check on your edits
17:05:15 [fantasai]: Bert, the issues list is current as of one hour ago
17:05:27 [fantasai]: Bert, that is, I closed the issues you'd finished
17:06:51 [anne]: fantasai, would it help if I draft proposed text changes for Selectors?
17:07:17 [fantasai]: anne: uh, let me read hsivonen's message first :)
17:07:33 [Bert]: Fantasai, I fixed 102 and 103.
17:07:45 [CesarAcebal]: CesarAcebal has left #css
17:10:28 [anne]: fantasai, the overall idea is eliminating one magic list, defining exactly how matching works in HTML in a way that works for HTML+SVG+MathML too and is consistent with the plan for solving that in the DOM, and making HTML and XHTML more consistent; it also means that parsing a style sheet would no longer depend on whether it is associated with an HTML or XML document
17:10:51 [fantasai]: parsing a style sheet is not supposed to depend on whether it's associated with an HTML or XML document
17:11:01 [fantasai]: I don't see anything about the magic list in hsivonen's email
17:11:08 [anne]: that's in my e-mail
17:11:18 [anne]: parsing and matching is intertwined in impl
17:11:19 [fantasai]: that's an issue for HTML to solve
17:11:26 [anne]: but read matching where I said parsing if you wish
17:11:30 [fantasai]: Selectors says it follows the case-sensitivity of the language
17:12:12 [fantasai]: the whole DOM issue seems like a mess
17:12:29 [fantasai]: anyway
17:12:38 [fantasai]: I do not agree with Selectors requiring lower-casing of tag selectors
17:13:11 [anne]: you keep two tag tokens around, one lowercase and one input case
17:13:17 [anne]: and which you use depends on the namespace
17:13:25 [fantasai]: I'm not talking about implementation details
17:13:29 [fantasai]: I'm talking about the spec
17:13:34 [anne]: you could phrase it as a matching requirement
17:13:58 [anne]: which you use matters
17:13:59 [fantasai]: which is intended to be general enough that it works for HTML4, HTML5, XML, and FooImaginaryLanguage
17:14:23 [anne]: e.g. does {XHTML namespace, HTML} match html or not
17:14:33 [fantasai]: no, because XML is case-sensitive
17:14:43 [anne]: I'm not talking about XML
17:14:53 [fantasai]: oh, in the HTML DOM?
17:15:11 [anne]: Selectors match against a DOM
17:15:25 [anne]: per HTML5 HTML elements end up in a namespace
17:15:26 [fantasai]: that'll depend on whether the DOM considers it case-sensitive
17:15:42 [fantasai]: is {XHTML namespace, html} the same type of element as {XHTML namespace, HTML}?
17:15:46 [fantasai]: if yes, then they'll match
17:15:49 [fantasai]: if no, then they won't
17:15:58 [anne]: right
17:16:01 [fantasai]: if it's not defined, it's not Selectors' place to define it
17:16:10 [anne]: but {XHTML namespace, html} HTML has to match
17:16:19 [anne]: and at that point it becomes a Selectors problem
17:16:33 [fantasai]: ok, back up a sec
17:16:45 [fantasai]: did the spec change to say that HTML elements in HTML documents create XHTML DOM nodes?
17:16:57 [anne]: there's no such thing as XHTML DOM nodes
17:17:03 [anne]: there's just DOM nodes
17:17:19 [anne]: HTML DOM vs XML DOM is some fiction that was never really adopted
17:17:21 [dbaron]: Our "internal DOM" has an IsCaseSensitive() method on nodes.
17:17:30 [dbaron]: I think you pretty much have to.
17:17:37 [anne]: hsivonen is removing a bunch of that
17:17:52 [dbaron]: He's fixing the namespace disaster that I was against from the start.
17:17:57 [dbaron]: But I don't think he's removing IsCaseSensitive()
17:18:15 [dbaron]: I don't see how we could distinguish tag matching without that.
17:18:24 [dbaron]: We're not going to make "BODY { color: green}" stop working
17:18:25 [anne]: based on namespace
17:18:42 [dbaron]: I think that's a bad idea
17:18:50 [anne]: for the XHTML namespace you always match lowercase
17:19:01 [dbaron]: So you're saying we should make "BODY { color: green} " match <xhtml:body> in an XML document?
17:19:01 [anne]: it's pretty neat I think
17:19:17 [anne]: that'd be a side effect
17:19:25 [fantasai]: no
17:19:28 [fantasai]: we are not doing that
17:19:30 [dbaron]: I think that's a bad idea.
17:19:32 [anne]: why?
17:19:43 [dbaron]: It's 10 years too late.
17:19:55 [anne]: we do it on the DOM side
17:19:57 [dbaron]: and XML is case-sensitive
17:20:10 [anne]: sure, it remains case-sensitive
17:20:19 [dbaron]: case-insensitivity is a pain
17:20:25 [anne]: it's just the selection mechanism has namespace specific knowledge
17:20:39 [dbaron]: where do you do it on the DOM side?
17:20:45 [anne]: getElementsByTagName
17:20:57 [dbaron]: ugh
17:21:04 [anne]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Apr/0081.html
17:21:27 [anne]: outlines the general idea
17:21:58 [anne]: i think that's the only sane solution here, but i'm open to suggestions
17:22:33 [fantasai]: tag selectors in a CSS style sheet applied to an XML document should match any elements in that document case-sensitively
17:23:05 [fantasai]: I don't care how you explain the implementation concept, but I'm opposed to anything that changes that
17:23:05 [sylvaing]: sylvaing has joined #css
17:23:12 [anne]: the proposal is to change that
17:23:18 [fantasai]: then I'm against the proposal
17:23:52 [anne]: i don't see why Selectors should be different from the DOM in this respect
17:24:23 [anne]: it only affects HTML elements in XML documents
17:25:10 [fantasai]: look, I don't care what you define for weird DOM manipulating ECMAScripted edgecases
17:25:52 [fantasai]: that import nodes from one type of document to another and other twisted things like that
17:26:27 [anne]: with HTML elements I mean XHTML elements as well, to be clear
17:26:27 [fantasai]: but on a straight-up parse from the XML
17:26:40 [fantasai]: selector matching should be case-sensitive
17:27:07 [fantasai]: This testcase: http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS3/Selectors/current/xhtml/tests/css3-modsel-181.xml
17:27:11 [fantasai]: should remain valid
17:27:13 [fantasai]: whatever you do
17:27:19 [anne]: i think the model where Selectors matches the same regardless of HTML or XML is more clean
17:27:58 [fantasai]: you are entitled to your opinions
17:28:49 [fantasai]: but you are not entitled to changing behavior that has been clearly specced and interoperably implemented for practically a decade
17:28:58 [fantasai]: without a better reason than aesthetics
17:29:33 [anne]: it makes the platform more consistent
17:29:42 [anne]: because DOM matching doesn't depend on some silly HTML/XML flag
17:30:09 [anne]: and conforming XHTML elements are lowercase anyway
17:30:27 [fantasai]: and don't match uppercase selectors anyway
17:31:57 [anne]: only for textArea is that a practical issue
17:32:34 [fantasai]: anne, we are not changing the behavior of that testcase
17:33:14 [anne]: since when do you authority over this?
17:33:20 [anne]: have*
17:33:32 [anne]: this does not seem like a reasonable debate to me
17:33:38 [anne]: i'll bow out
17:34:09 [fantasai]: anne, if you want to bring it to the WG, feel free
17:34:17 [fantasai]: anne, but you will not get a positive response there
17:34:46 [fantasai]: anne, there are too many implementations that pass that test case already
17:35:38 [fantasai]: anne, if you want, I'll even keep quiet during the whole debate that ensues
17:35:51 [anne]: and several might be ok with failing that test as indicated on the list
17:35:55 [anne]: anyway, we'll see
17:36:11 [anne]: what dbaron proposed could work too
17:39:12 [Lachy]: Lachy has joined #css
17:40:52 [sylvaing]: maybe some pulp fiction IE abuse is in order: http://www.elliottkember.com/ie.html
17:44:40 [anne]: lol
17:45:06 [anne]: i love that movie
17:46:10 [sylvaing]: totally
17:47:00 [sylvaing]: kind of love the view-source idea on that page too
17:47:48 [fantasai]: Bert, issues 102 and 103 closed
17:47:53 [fantasai]: Bert, let me know when you complete the rest
18:11:24 [Bert]: Fantasai, what else do I need to complete?
18:11:57 [fantasai]: Issue 85 - fixing typos
18:12:06 [fantasai]: Issue 94 - placement of example
18:12:11 [fantasai]: maybe you did these?
18:12:18 [fantasai]: I didn't check them because you didn't say you did
18:12:27 [Bert]: I believe so, let me check if I uploaded them...
18:12:27 [fantasai]: Issue 100 - copying wording from css3-background
18:12:39 [fantasai]: btw, I didn't check 104
18:12:43 [fantasai]: if you could double-check that for me
18:12:47 [fantasai]: I don't really know what to look for
18:12:54 [fantasai]: issue 105
18:13:00 [fantasai]: Issue 108
18:14:19 [Bert]: I think 100 is done. I copied what was needed according to the issue, I don't think we should change something just to make it better.
18:15:27 [Bert]: 94 indeed already uploaded.
18:16:10 [Bert]: 85 also
18:17:08 [Bert]: Double-checking 104...
18:18:47 [Bert]: (I noticed while editing 104 that Yves and I already proposed a different, but equivalent change some time ago. A little shorter, but not much.)
18:20:40 [fantasai]: Bert, the 85 fix didn't make it to Changes or Errata
18:22:05 [Bert]: We should really stop changing CSS 2.1, if only because it's such a pain to edit a spec and a changes section and an errata list :-(
18:22:23 [fantasai]: hehehe
18:22:32 [fantasai]: Bert, Issue 94 didn't make it to the Changes list
18:22:52 [fantasai]: or Errata
18:25:08 [Bert]: Double-checked 104.
18:27:56 [Bert]: I see 85 in the errata and in the changes...
18:28:20 [Bert]: althjough it would look better to merge C.5.8 with C.5.7.
18:32:04 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #css
18:42:47 [dbaron]: dbaron has joined #css
18:50:24 [Bert]: 85 and 94 updated in errata and changes. 105 seems OK. 108 uses the exact text I sent to www-style; nobody asked for it to be changed.
18:53:35 [fantasai]: you could also do 112 while I check :)
18:55:42 [fantasai]: Bert, well, ok but I don't think your text actually fixes the issue for 108
18:58:12 [fantasai]: oh, there's another change
18:58:18 [Bert]: The issue was whether 'none' could be a counter name. It now says, in two places, that it cannot. What else is needed?
19:00:11 [fantasai]: I'll let it slide
19:01:58 [fantasai]: Bert: should I close Issue 104 then?
19:08:12 [Bert]: Yes, 104 can be closed.
19:08:28 [Bert]: 112 is being generated, should be uploaded in a minute or two.
19:38:39 [fantasai]: Bert, wrt feature requirements for border-image
19:38:56 [fantasai]: the bullet about drawing the outside edge of the border image
19:39:05 [fantasai]: should say "at or beyond" rather than "at the border edge"
19:40:59 [Bert]: Did anybody request "beyond"?
19:41:24 [fantasai]: yes
19:41:33 [fantasai]: that was one of the major points in the discussion over Brad Kemper's propsoal
19:41:45 [fantasai]: s/propsoal/proposal/
19:41:51 [fantasai]: and one of the key features in it
19:43:23 [fantasai]: Checked in an example for &&
19:43:32 [fantasai]: to css3-background
19:43:37 [fantasai]: you can use it to edit Issue 113
19:48:21 [Bert]: Borders outside the borders: seems rather over-engineered.
19:48:32 [Bert]: borde-rimage was nice because i wa ssimple.
19:48:46 [Bert]: Now it's no longer simple. I'd rather drop the whole property :-(
19:49:53 [fantasai]: you probably should take a good look at the examples in http://www.bradclicks.com/cssplay/border-image/Thinking_Outside_The_Box.html
19:50:03 [fantasai]: they show why it's necessary
19:50:07 [fantasai]: anyway
19:50:24 [Bert]: No, they show that Brad has a lot of fantasy.
19:50:37 [fantasai]: 112 still hasn't made it to w3.org
19:50:48 [fantasai]: did you check it in yet?
19:51:27 [Bert]: I can see it.
19:52:14 [fantasai]: oh
19:52:15 [fantasai]: yeah
19:52:21 [fantasai]: I can see the text change too
19:52:26 [fantasai]: but the title hasn't been changed
19:52:30 [fantasai]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Apr/0099.html
19:54:31 [sylvaing]: sylvaing has joined #css
19:58:37 [Bert]: The title wasn't part of David's proposal, just a "perhaps." The change itself already wasn't necessary, the change of the title even less. It would have been good in 1997, but now it just causes confusion.
19:59:51 [fantasai]: alright, fine
20:00:31 [fantasai]: next time, I'm going to insist on us being excruciatingly precise about which bits of a proposal we're accepting when we accept a proposal
20:00:46 [fantasai]: I was under the impression that both changes were accepted
20:09:45 [fantasai]: Alright, those issues closed
20:09:49 [fantasai]: 113 and you're done :)
20:11:12 [fantasai]: Bert, let me know when you're done with 113
20:31:39 [sylvaing]: (fwiw, the scribe thought both changes were accepted as well)
20:57:38 [anne]: anne has joined #css
21:06:58 [sylvaing]: sylvaing has joined #css
21:31:48 [sylvaing]: sylvaing has joined #css
21:58:14 [sylvaing]: sylvaing has joined #css
23:54:21 [arronei]: arronei has joined #CSS