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