00:00:29 JJ: Just say "HTML specifications"
00:01:08 DG: Cannot reference HTML5 as it is not a REc.
00:01:21 arno1 has joined #css
00:01:48 RESOLVED: "and future versions" added to to section 3.1 for issue 255.
00:02:10 Topic: issue 256
00:02:20 http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-256
00:03:02 DG: Just add "in HTML"
00:03:17 TC: *any version* of HTML.
00:04:28 PL: How about XForms?
00:04:39 ... Leave it as is.
00:04:55 RESOLVED: No change for issue 256.
00:05:00 http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-257
00:05:05 Topic: Issue 257
00:05:59 PL: I think we do want boxes to have properties.
00:06:03 DB: I agree.
00:06:07 PL: So no chnage?
00:06:17 RESOLVED: no change for issue 257
00:06:33 Topic: Issue 259
00:06:35 http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-259
00:07:43 DG: Indeed the 'inherit' keyword is never the computed value.
00:08:35 HL: In css3-values, 'inherit' is not the specified value.
00:08:46 DB: We might have changed that already.
00:09:24 DG: If 'inherit' is not returned as the specified value, that breaks editors.
00:09:47 EE: Have to distinguish from what the CSSOM says.
00:10:29 HL: There is a "cascaded value" also, that is what editors need.
00:11:14 ... The text in CSS 2.1 is consistent with css3-values.
00:11:47 PL: So no change?
00:11:54 JJ: And do something in level 3?
00:12:05 TA: Better not have level 3 contradict level 2.
00:12:57 HL/JJ: Bahevior isn't different, there is just different terms: cascaded values.
00:13:54 EE: Inconsistency between 3 and 2 is the missing term cascaded value.
00:14:02 ... Could add a note about that.
00:14:28 http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-260
00:14:46 ACTION elika: write a proposed text for issue 259
00:14:46 Created ACTION-310 - Write a proposed text for issue 259 [on Elika Etemad - due 2011-03-15].
00:15:04 Topic: issue 260
00:16:29 EE: We added that note to clarify something else. Opinions differ on what is more or less confusing. So no change.
00:16:53 RESOLVED: no change for issue 260
00:17:07 Topic: Issue 261
00:17:34 DG: Nobody ever complained. Seems not worth a chnage.
00:18:02 PL: Is this already in Selectors spec?
00:18:19 DG: No, that has the same prose as 2.1.
00:18:26 arno has joined #css
00:19:14 PL: No chnage needed. Selectors is a clearer, that's good enough.
00:19:23 RESOLVED: No change issue 261
00:20:50 [Discussion about issues list and numbers, duplicates]
00:21:37 JJ: Issue 262 seems duplicate of 261 and 260.
00:22:00 http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-262
00:22:25 Topic: Issue 262
00:22:35 PL: Propose no change for issue 262.
00:23:01 RESOLVED: No change issue 262
00:25:43 homata has joined #CSS
00:26:41 [Discussion about what is best way to deal with minor editorial issues. At this point, just rejecting it is best, no risk of errors.]
00:26:56 http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-263
00:27:13 Topic: Issue 263
00:27:52 SZ: Maybe we can make a boilerplate text for all these editorial rejected issues.
00:28:09 ... For when we reply to the submitter of the issue.
00:29:13 PL: Seems same case again: Edit is nice to have, but not needed now.
00:29:22 RESOLVED: no change for issue 263
00:29:29 http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-264
00:29:36 Topic: Issue 264
00:30:11 DB: We discussed zero-height floats already today.
00:31:00 JJ: Did the earlier discussion affect this issue?
00:31:20 DB: No. The note in the issue is wrong.
00:32:44 RESOLVED: accept change proposed in the issue e-mail for issue 264.
00:32:56 Topic: Issue 265
00:33:14 RESOLVED: No change issue 265
00:33:22 Topic: Issue 266
00:34:06 http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-266
00:35:15 EE: I think we should make the suggested edits, they fix what we missied in the previous round for issue 120.
00:35:26 JJ: And the ones you were not sure about?
00:35:44 ... Issue 3 in the linked e-mail.
00:36:31 [it's about whether table-caption is block-level]
00:36:47 AE: Doesn't seem to hurt anything to make it block-level.
00:38:45 EE: If we don't fix it, we'll have to do it in errata anyway.
00:39:20 [Discussion about how 'overflow' might apply if flex box is added to CSS]
00:39:57 JJ: So take all of them, except issue 6.
00:40:26 s/all of/none of/
00:41:53 EE: What does Bert think?
00:41:58 BB: I don't know yet.
00:42:40 RESOLVED: Accept issue 6, defer the others to the errata.
00:43:00 [Above is for issue 266]
00:43:08 Topic: Issue 267
00:43:10 http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-267
00:43:34 DB: It marches impls that I tested.
00:43:45 s/marches/matches/
00:44:16 s/It/The proposed edit/
00:44:45 sgalineau has joined #css
00:44:48 test is http://dbaron.org/css/test/2011/css21-issue-267
00:45:00 (question is which is on top)
00:45:26 actually, it doesn't test the issue
00:45:35 DB: I think it is editorial.
00:45:57 actually, hold on
00:49:12 268 and 269 should be http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jan/0087.html right?
00:49:21 DB: Two browsers do one thing, two do the other.
00:49:46 ... The proposal matches Opera nd Webkit.
00:49:52 s/nd/and/
00:50:20 http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-268
00:50:22 RESOLVED: Accept propsoed edit for issue 267.
00:50:32 Topic: Issue 268
00:52:02 http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-203
00:52:15 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0665.html
00:52:15 Topic: Issue 203 (again)
00:52:42 JJ: Anton Prowse disagrees with our resolution.
00:54:17 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0665.html Anton's message
00:58:50 DB: The reason for the hypothetical top border is so as not to move the element unnecessarily.
00:59:05 AE: Test cases are all interoperable.
00:59:57 ... See margin-collapse-05
01:01:14 EE: Difficult to keep track of which clearance issues are the same issue.
01:01:52 s/margin-collapse-05/margin-collapse-clear-005
01:02:17 http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-268
01:03:46 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jan/0644.html
01:03:50 resolved in that meeting
01:04:32 RESOLVED: 203 was already discussed and we allowed two behaviors. (See issues list)
01:04:48 s/move the element/move the element up/
01:04:52 Topic: Issue 268
01:05:09 (I'm having trouble working out a testcase for why the hypothetical border edge is useful, though.)
01:05:30 EE: I thibnk the spec is correct.
01:06:19 alexmog has joined #css
01:06:43 Though actually, maybe I'm misremembering the purpose.
01:06:51 Maybe it's to prevent contradictions.
01:07:22 s/thibnk/think/
01:07:22 tantek has joined #css
01:08:45 [People trying to find out what the issue is]
01:09:20 AE: Quite a few test cases for this.
01:11:06 actual issue: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jan/0085.html
01:12:12 [Mumble mumble]
01:12:36 RESOLVED: No change for issue 268
01:13:54 [DB and EE discuss some case]
01:15:05 EE: All impls seem to agree on what the first formatted line is.
01:15:11 http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-269
01:15:15 Topic: Issue 169
01:15:21 s/169/269/
01:16:44 arno has joined #css
01:17:06 EE: propose to change to edges of line box, instead of block.
01:17:53 RESOLVED: Use line box edges instea dof block edges in issue 269
01:18:03 http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-270
01:18:04 Topic: Issue 270
01:18:59 EE: I can propose a text.
01:19:30 DB: I might have some issues. I started implementing this.
01:19:50 arno1 has joined #css
01:20:02 RESOLVED: No change for issue 270. Do something in level 3.
01:20:09 http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-271
01:20:12 Topic: Issue 271
01:22:08 AE: I think the colon in the spec was intended to mean "e.g."
01:22:52 [Discussion about what issues to discuss. Skip all editorial?]
01:22:55 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Dec/0312.html
01:23:02 Anton's list of substantive issues ^
01:24:25 DB: Turn the email into a wiki page so we can start dealing with it
01:25:10 http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1/anton-lc-2010
01:25:57 PL: What can we discuss now?
01:26:33 ... How dow we go through Anton's list?
01:26:44 AE: I have made comments on many of the issues.
01:27:36 ... Most of them I found need no change.
01:28:26 so Arron and Elika will get Anton's email into actionable issues
01:28:30 Topic: Test failures
01:28:34 discuss on wednesday.
01:29:35 PL: Background-fixed 4 and 5 were expecting a fix in Gecko.
01:29:48 DB: Give me 5 seconds...
01:30:51 SF: Last week we suggested to leave it undefined.
01:31:30 PL: I agree with undefined. Unless we have a proposal for a spec chnage.
01:31:40 DB: Gecko might take a month to fix.
01:32:26 EE: bg-pos may apply to image with no intrinsic size.
01:33:00 AE: Is it not already undefined?
01:33:15 DB: Might want to make it explicit, and say there is another spec that defines it.
01:33:56 The background position of background images with an intrinsic ratio and no intrinsic size is undefined in CSS2.1, see CSS3 Backgrounds and Borders.
01:34:34 RESOLVED: Change bg-pos of images as fantasai just wrote.
01:34:58 DB: So the test still needs fixing?
01:35:19 Topic: test bidi-breaking-2
01:36:02 EE: should be a may
01:37:15 http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/latest/xhtml1/block-in-inline-relpos-002.xht
01:37:38 Topic: block-in-inline-relpos-002
01:38:53 PL: What do we do with this one?
01:40:00 [DB trying to find out why various browsers fail.]
01:40:27 arronei: http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/fantasai/submitted/css2.1/bidi-breaking-002.xht
01:40:41 DB: Related to what we discussed earlier, about relative pos. affecting nested block elements.
01:41:21 ... Four browsers that all do different things.
01:41:32 myakura has joined #css
01:42:55 [DB and PL notice that two versions on diff. platforms of Opera do different things, too.]
01:43:01 bidi-breaking-002 should work now; removed the HTML
bit of the test (since that's up in the air anyway)
01:44:06 [People looking over other people's shoulders to see what various browsers do on different platforms...]
01:44:47 DB: Somebody should take an action to figure out what to do. And not me.
01:44:53 AE: I can do it.
01:45:41 ACTION Arron: propose a solution for block-in-inline-relpos-002
01:45:41 Created ACTION-311 - Propose a solution for block-in-inline-relpos-002 [on Arron Eicholz - due 2011-03-15].
01:49:51 content-computed-value-001
01:50:33 Topic: content-computed-value-001
01:50:41 RESOLVED: Remove the test
01:51:30 stearns has left #css
01:52:42 Topic: replaced-intrinsic-ration-001
01:52:44 we're going through the blocking tests on http://wiki.csswg.org/test/css2.1/blocking
01:52:48 s/ration/ratio/
01:53:09 DB: Close to a patch for Gecko, just need to fix a few more existing tests.
01:54:18 PL: It seems to be testing multiple things.
01:54:23 EE: [something]
01:54:39 PL: Are you going to define behavior?
01:54:49 EE: I might want to fix this.
01:55:16 ... I will propose text.
01:55:49 ... For the spec.
01:56:15 HL: Is this an SVG issue?
01:57:36 EE: Yes, affects all SVG that doesn't have a fixed size (i.e. scalable SVG)
01:57:47 RESOLVED: Change the spec in some way.
01:57:50 EE: Proposal is to make sizing of replaced elements with intrinsic ratio but no size undefined.
02:00:28 RESOLVED: ... and put the current rule in level 3 instead.
02:00:42 BB: It was put in on request from SVG wasn't it?
02:01:00 Topic: uri-016
02:01:51 http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/uri-016.htm
02:01:53 no, it was put in a long time ago because it was it wasn't defined
02:02:00 the test is failing because UAs misinterpreted SVG
02:03:39 kennyluck has joined #CSS
02:03:59 PL: We don't have the exit criteria from other CSS modules in the CSS 2.1 spec,
02:04:21 ... Difference is about experimental builds.
02:04:33 ... Didn't we resolve to fix that already?
02:05:13 http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-272
02:05:45 RESOLVED: Update CSS 2.1 exit criteria to the current (CSS3 standard) exit criteria, minus the 30-day implementation requirement.
02:07:11 [End of meeting for today]
02:10:39 rrsagent, draft minutes
02:10:39 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/03/08-css-minutes.html Bert
02:10:49 rrsagent, make logs public
02:13:16 Hmm, forgot to tell rrsagent that the meeting spanned midnight. :-(
02:55:06 miketaylr has joined #css
03:22:29 bradk has joined #css
03:34:49 bradk has joined #css
03:54:37 Xaxio has joined #css
04:55:56 tantek has joined #css
05:00:23 fantasai2 has joined #css
05:04:50 homata has joined #CSS
06:01:15 dsinger has joined #css
06:07:12 jdaggett has joined #css
06:19:52 Arron has joined #css
06:21:21 sylvaing has joined #css
06:39:18 plinss_ has joined #css
06:41:39 anne has joined #css
06:44:59 dbaron has joined #css
06:48:39 arno has joined #css
07:04:24 homata__ has joined #CSS
07:04:27 TabAtkins_ has joined #css
07:20:16 arno1 has joined #css
07:33:07 plinss_ has joined #css
07:38:06 Martijnc has joined #css
07:58:39 homata has joined #CSS
08:07:55 plinss_ has joined #css
08:38:23 homata__ has joined #CSS
09:45:55 plinss_ has joined #css
09:46:07 Ms2ger has joined #css
09:52:22 lhnz has joined #css
10:27:50 plinss_ has joined #css
10:47:45 homata has joined #CSS
10:47:50 plinss_ has joined #css
11:03:15 arronei has joined #CSS
11:20:43 Martijnc has joined #css
16:55:23 RRSAgent has joined #css
16:55:23 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/03/08-css-irc
16:55:31 invite zakim, #css
16:56:19