15:27:41 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #css
15:27:41 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/09/19-css-irc
15:27:47 <glazou> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:33:45 <nimbu> nimbu has joined #css
15:43:39 <nimbu> fantasai: i was looking at state of affairs for print style support  and was depressss
15:44:19 <SimonSapin> nimbu: do you mean css3-page in browser engines?
15:45:01 <nimbu> SimonSapin: wellll i mean orphans widows etc
15:45:13 <nimbu> i know page-break-* is being actively worked on for other reasons.
15:45:26 <nimbu> thead repeating on tables on multiple pages
15:45:33 <SimonSapin> I see
15:45:48 <Ms2ger> It's really tools like prince you need for that :/
15:45:58 <nimbu> yaa :|||||
15:46:05 <nimbu> i mean here we are with webGL and coolness™
15:46:12 <nimbu> cant even get print to work properly >_>
15:46:16 <Ms2ger> Also, doesn't SimonSapin have something similar? :)
15:46:18 <SimonSapin> Or weasyprint :D
15:46:23 <nimbu> i mean i am not that depressed but its just sad :|
15:46:41 <nimbu> alsooo i mean this h1, h2 { page-break-after: avoid; } should be default on browsers
15:46:48 <nimbu> why should designers/devs do it manually.
15:47:09 <SimonSapin> it’s in weasyprint’s UA stylesheet
15:47:20 <Ms2ger> It's not sexy, I'm afraid
15:47:28 <nimbu> WAT Ms2ger
15:47:51 <SimonSapin> In Prince’s too.
15:47:54 <nimbu> ohh nice.
15:48:00 <nimbu> BUT NOT IN BROWSERS WAI
15:51:10 <jet> jet has joined #CSS
15:52:57 <bradk> bradk has joined #css
15:54:24 <glazou> hello all
15:54:38 <glazou> I have kids around, not sure I can join the call immediately
15:54:46 <nimbu> hi glazou how do you feel about going back to school for test the web forward!!
15:56:11 <glazou> not the first time I go back to TelecomParis
15:56:24 <lstorset> lstorset has joined #css
15:56:57 <nimbu> ha.
15:57:07 <glazou> nimbu: why? new choice ?
15:57:15 <nimbu> glazou: ya! its now at TelecomParis!
15:57:16 <Zakim> Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
15:57:23 <Zakim> +plinss
15:57:24 <antonp> antonp has joined #css
15:57:30 <glazou> ah ok ; yeah the other venue rue de Charenton was a bit problematic, really
15:57:33 <glazou> hi SimonSapin 
15:57:39 <glazou> and welcome
15:57:44 <Zakim> +fantasai
15:57:51 <glazou> plinss: I need two other mins to join
15:57:55 <Zakim> +??P34
15:58:02 <SimonSapin1> SimonSapin1 has joined #css
15:58:07 <jdaggett> zakim, ++p34 is me
15:58:07 <Zakim> sorry, jdaggett, I do not recognize a party named '++p34'
15:58:10 <SimonSapin1> Hi glazou
15:58:22 <jdaggett> zakim, ??p34 is me
15:58:22 <Zakim> +jdaggett; got it
15:58:31 <Zakim> +richt
15:58:38 <lstorset> Zakim, richt is me
15:58:38 <Zakim> +lstorset; got it
15:59:14 <CesarAcebal> CesarAcebal has joined #css
15:59:21 <florian> florian has joined #css
15:59:42 <rbetts> rbetts has joined #css
15:59:44 <arronei_> arronei_ has joined #css
15:59:47 <Zakim> +stearns
15:59:49 <Zakim> +bradk
16:00:20 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
16:00:23 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:00:24 <bradk> yeah, Zakim recognized me this time!
16:00:43 <Zakim> + +34.60.940.aaaa
16:00:59 <CesarAcebal> Zakim, aaaa is me.
16:01:00 <Zakim> + +93550aabb
16:01:04 <Zakim> + +1.206.324.aacc
16:01:08 <Zakim> + +1.253.307.aadd
16:01:18 <Zakim> +CesarAcebal; got it
16:01:19 <antonp> Zakim, aabb is me
16:01:20 <Zakim> +rbetts
16:01:24 <Zakim> +antonp; got it
16:01:37 <arronei_> Zakim, aadd is me
16:01:37 <Zakim> +arronei_; got it
16:01:38 <Zakim> +??P63
16:01:48 <JohnJansen> JohnJansen has joined #css
16:01:53 <Zakim> +??P67
16:01:56 <Zakim> +SteveZ
16:01:58 <glazou> Zakim, ??P67 is me
16:01:58 <Zakim> +glazou; got it
16:02:03 <JohnJansen> zakim, microsoft has JohnJansen
16:02:04 <Zakim> +JohnJansen; got it
16:02:08 <Zakim> +??P69
16:02:27 <glazou> Zakim, who is noisy?
16:02:30 <plinss> florian: http://www.w3.org/2006/tools/wiki/Zakim_Tips
16:02:38 <Zakim> glazou, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 17 (34%)
16:02:39 <glazou> Zakim, mute florian
16:02:39 <bradk> Zakim, who is noisy?
16:02:40 <Zakim> sorry, glazou, I do not know which phone connection belongs to florian
16:02:50 <Zakim> bradk, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
16:02:53 <SimonSapin> Zakim, ??P69 is me
16:02:56 <SimonSapin> (I think)
16:02:59 <Zakim> +SimonSapin; got it
16:03:08 <fantasai> Zakim, who is noisy?
16:03:09 <glazou> Zakim, who is noisy?
16:03:18 <Zakim> fantasai, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: antonp (5%)
16:03:21 <glazou> Zakim, mute 17
16:03:21 <Zakim> sorry, glazou, I do not know which phone connection belongs to 17
16:03:22 <jdaggett> ow, my ears...
16:03:30 <Zakim> glazou, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: antonp (5%), glazou (29%)
16:03:37 <jdaggett> zakim, mute antonp
16:03:37 <Zakim> antonp should now be muted
16:03:46 <antonp> (I'm already muted)
16:04:14 <jdaggett> peace and tranquility
16:04:17 <SimonSapin> I think it’s me
16:04:30 <Zakim> +??P27
16:04:34 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
16:04:42 <Zakim> +dbaron
16:04:47 <Zakim> +??P33
16:04:56 <florian> Zakim, I am ??P33
16:04:56 <Zakim> +florian; got it
16:04:59 <glazou> thiis is the worst 2 mins ever on this call I guess
16:05:03 <smfr> smfr has joined #css
16:05:13 <sylvaing> worst? is that a challenge?
16:05:18 <plinss> zakim, who is on the call?
16:05:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see plinss, fantasai, jdaggett, lstorset, stearns, bradk, [Microsoft], CesarAcebal, antonp (muted), arronei_, +1.206.324.aacc, rbetts, ??P63, glazou, SteveZ,
16:05:19 <Zakim> ... SimonSapin, ??P27, dbaron, florian
16:05:19 <Zakim> [Microsoft] has JohnJansen
16:05:22 <glazou> sylvaing: welcome back ;-)
16:05:37 <antonp> box align names could give you a run for your money
16:05:39 <sylvaing> thx
16:05:42 <Zakim> +smfr
16:05:58 <glazou> what ? smfr is with us, no other apple event this week?-)
16:06:03 <antonp> ScribeNick: antonp
16:06:22 <antonp> plinss: Agenda additions?
16:06:30 <antonp> jdaggett: css3-fonts WD request - please defer
16:06:39 <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2012Sep/0020.html
16:06:47 <antonp> fantasai: like to discuss the above post
16:06:50 <fantasai> css3-sizing, FPWD??? https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2012JulSep/0281.html
16:06:59 <fantasai> css3-flexbox CR??? https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2012JulSep/0344.html
16:07:25 <antonp> ITEM: Tokyo f2f dates
16:07:37 <antonp> plinss: steve and john have a hard conflict
16:08:08 <Zakim> + +1.415.615.aaee
16:08:24 <antonp> jdaggett: target date of June 5 through 7 (wed - Fri)
16:08:38 <antonp> ...: SVG guys could do Mon and Tue, overlap with CSS on Weds
16:09:04 <antonp> glazou: how many people in CSS will attend SVG on Weds?
16:09:28 <antonp> jdaggett: Can treat Weds as a CSS day in which SVG guys participate
16:09:58 <antonp> jdaggett: We can sponsor, but our present base can't hold both groups.  We're hoping we'll find a larger space in time
16:10:16 <antonp> ... for now, put down Mozilla Japan as sponsor, but need to check again in Jan
16:10:29 <antonp> florian: proposed dates don't work for me, but nor do others
16:10:41 <antonp> jdaggett: want to accommodate the AT meeting that's also in Tokyo
16:10:58 <antonp> szilles: I have same problem as florian
16:11:27 <antonp> s/szilles/SteveZ
16:12:35 <antonp> florian: to accommodate me it'd have to be either a month earlier or a month later, so don't go too crazy trying to schedule for me
16:12:43 <antonp> jdaggett: at TPAC we can talk again
16:13:07 <antonp> jdaggett: I'll update the wiki with relevant info, proposing 5,6,7 June (with 5 June as crossover day)
16:13:23 <antonp> florian: If I can only come on Sunday to TPAC, do I have to pay a fee?
16:13:31 <antonp> SteveZ: no, no fee for that day
16:13:42 <dbaron> dbaron: Given that the next-to-AC-meeting dates don't work for Steve, doesn't seem like doing next-to-AC-meeting scheduling helps that many people.
16:14:18 <antonp> TOPIC: svg2 property review
16:14:26 <antonp> plinss: feedback everyone?
16:15:02 <antonp> plinss: minor threads on www-style about IRIs/URLs
16:15:11 <antonp> glazou: seems to be a point of contention
16:15:21 <fantasai> http://doodle.com/z99cyshc5fy96kbr ?
16:16:04 <antonp> rossen: paintOrderProperty - name is good, but we've used the expression "paint order" to mean something quite different
16:16:13 <sylvaing> s/rossen/sylvaing
16:16:49 <antonp> plinss: do we need more time to review
16:17:06 <antonp> glazou: I reviewed it but don't have comments, not really my area
16:17:30 <antonp> plinss: revisit next week?
16:17:55 <antonp> dbaron: I'm not that happy about paintOrder but don't have better ideas right now
16:18:15 <antonp> s/paintOrder/paint-order
16:18:37 <antonp> plinss: should we make that WG feedback, or individual feedback?
16:18:41 <rhauck> rhauck has joined #css
16:18:50 <antonp> dbaron: I don't have a strong opinion, and am not crazy about WG feedback in general
16:18:59 <antonp> glazou: we've been asked as a group for feedback
16:19:08 <smfr> smfr has joined #css
16:19:18 <antonp> dbaron: In that case, I'd like another week
16:19:33 <antonp> RESOLVED: revisit next week, after review
16:19:58 <antonp> ACTION on glazou: contact Cameron about the delay
16:19:58 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on
16:20:11 <Rossen> Rossen has joined #css
16:20:15 <glazou> ACTION glazou : contact Cameron on new 1 week delay
16:20:15 <trackbot> Created ACTION-508 - : contact Cameron on new 1 week delay [on Daniel Glazman - due 2012-09-26].
16:20:27 <antonp> TOPIC: DOM3 Events
16:20:39 <antonp> glazou: I reviewed it; it seems fine
16:21:15 <antonp> <silence>
16:21:51 <antonp> glazou: CSS is mentioned in 2 places: z-order manipulated by CSS, and the way in which mouse movements work
16:22:05 <antonp> ... also mouse enter and mouse leave being like hover
16:22:41 <antonp> smfr: Is "mouse event order" section describing something new, or something that's implemented?
16:22:49 <antonp> glazou: seems to me that it's already implemented
16:23:36 <Zakim> -??P27
16:23:37 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
16:23:39 <antonp> SteveZ: seems like our response is "no comments"
16:23:48 <antonp> RESOLVED: we have no comments on DOM3 Events
16:23:51 <Rossen> Zakim, [Microsoft.a] is me
16:23:51 <Zakim> +Rossen; got it
16:23:52 <glazou> ACTION glazou: no comment on DOM 3 Events
16:23:52 <trackbot> Created ACTION-509 - No comment on DOM 3 Events [on Daniel Glazman - due 2012-09-26].
16:24:07 <fantasai> ScribeNick: fantasai
16:24:13 <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Sep/0041.html
16:24:22 <fantasai> zakim, unmute antonp
16:24:22 <glazou> Zakim, unmute antonp 
16:24:23 <Zakim> antonp should no longer be muted
16:24:23 <Zakim> antonp should no longer be muted
16:24:38 <Zakim> +??P56
16:24:42 <fantasai> antonp: This is about a proposal to introduce the term "block container element"
16:24:45 <koji> zakim, ??p56 is me
16:24:45 <Zakim> +koji; got it
16:24:50 <fantasai> antonp: We raised it briefly last week so ppl could have a week to review
16:24:53 <glazou> hi koji 
16:24:57 <fantasai> antonp: Noticed fantasai replied today
16:25:05 <fantasai> antonp: Rossen also wanted a chance to review
16:25:12 <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Sep/0356.html
16:25:19 <fantasai> smfr: block container element is ?
16:25:35 <fantasai> antonp: we already have concept of block container box, but we have problem in CSS2.1 where we mix elements and boxes all over the place
16:25:46 <fantasai> antonp: would be good to have an element vs. box distinction
16:25:54 <fantasai> antonp: this will help us to write errata with the right terminology
16:26:08 <fantasai> antonp: don't think it introduces anything substantial
16:26:17 <fantasai> smfr: how does it work with anon boxes?
16:26:34 <fantasai> antonp: An anonymous box would never generate a principal box, so couldn't possibly be a principal block container element
16:26:43 <fantasai> antonp: anon boxes aren't produced by elements anyway, so no issue
16:26:58 <fantasai> antonp: anon boxes often are block boxes, but no corresponding block element
16:27:05 <fantasai> antonp: one question fantasai raised on list was
16:27:16 <fantasai> antonp: suggested some alternative wording of one paragraph, seems good to me
16:27:33 <fantasai> antonp: also made a comment on "Certain values" phrase
16:28:04 <fantasai> antonp: [talks about "principal box" term, how it's used but not defined]
16:28:37 <fantasai> antonp: I deliberately don't include inline boxes when talking about principal boxes
16:28:43 <fantasai> antonp: because they behave differently from other boxes
16:28:55 <fantasai> antonp: but fantasai feels that inlines do generate principal boxes
16:29:14 <fantasai> antonp: I don't think we need to answer that question for CSS2.1, which is why the wording is deliberately vague
16:29:31 <fantasai> antonp: a bit cheating, we can do anything in CSS3, since omitted from CSS2.1
16:29:51 <fantasai> dbaron: I think if you want something to be undefined, you should say so
16:30:17 <dbaron> dbaron: if it's omitted, it doesn't happen
16:31:33 <fantasai> fantasai: If block-level boxes can be principal, then so can inline boxes
16:31:44 <fantasai> fantasai: Reason inline elements have multiple boxes in CSS2.1 is that they're fragmented
16:31:53 <fantasai> fantasai: But block elements also get fragmented when they're paginated e.g.
16:32:04 <fantasai> fantasai: I think originally this was not considered by the spec authors
16:32:12 <fantasai> fantasai: inline elements were thought of as having multiple boxes
16:32:22 <fantasai> fantasai: but now we have concept of a "box", which is then fragmented into "fragments of boxes"
16:32:33 <fantasai> fantasai: And the same phenomenon applies to block-level elements as to inline ones
16:32:54 <fantasai> antonp: I agree, which is why not objecting to the idea of principal box for inlines
16:33:10 <fantasai> antonp: But I don't think that ties in with Chapter 10
16:33:22 <Zakim> -jdaggett
16:33:24 <fantasai> antonp: I know Bert's model doesn't really match this idea of principal boxes
16:33:35 <fantasai> antonp: But that said, I think there are actually existing problems in Chapter 10 anyway
16:33:50 <fantasai> antonp: So don't think ought to be changing our mind on basis of Chapter 10 that might not be the best anyway
16:33:56 <fantasai> antonp: So [...]
16:34:04 <fantasai> antonp: Which brings me back to dbaron's comment
16:34:12 <fantasai> antonp: I suppose, I can't argue against it
16:34:28 <drublic> drublic has joined #css
16:34:35 <fantasai> antonp: but I do think if you're trying to clarify something thats unclear, and improve but not all the way, then it's still improvement
16:34:44 <fantasai> antonp: You could argue that either way
16:34:57 <fantasai> antonp: But if others not happy with that [...]
16:35:07 <fantasai> szilles: I think better to leave explicitly undefined
16:35:18 <fantasai> plinss: Do we need to leave it undefined?
16:35:53 <fantasai> Florian: Since tricky to define whether or not they define principal boxes, would do what Anton says
16:36:11 <glazou> Ms2ger: from time to time, yes :)
16:36:12 <fantasai> Florian: Can make decision to define one way or another at some later point
16:36:24 <fantasai> fantasai: I'm fine either way
16:36:52 <florian> I would prefer to mark explicitely undefined for inlines, but otherwise do what anton says.
16:37:02 <fantasai> plinss: If there are issues in Chapter 10, let's just address them.
16:37:11 <fantasai> fantasai: I'd like to hear from Bert, is he on the call?
16:37:43 <glazou> Bert: can't zakim call you ?
16:38:04 <Bert> zakim, call bert
16:38:04 <Zakim> I am sorry, Bert; I do not know a number for bert
16:38:22 <fantasai> arronei: Can we just accept Anton's text and take the inline portion for next week?
16:38:29 <fantasai> Florian: That would work for me
16:39:04 <fantasai> fantasai: Can treat Anton's issue as separate from my comment, have that be another issue
16:39:23 <fantasai> dbaron: Would like it to be explicitly defined
16:39:29 <SimonSapin> SimonSapin has joined #css
16:39:41 <dbaron> s/defined/undefined if we don't know yet/
16:39:46 <SteveZ> +1 with David  and Rossen
16:39:54 <florian> +1
16:40:03 <Bert> I'd like to discuss with Anton why he thinks we need the concept of "principal" at all. To me, list-items just generate two boxes, one a block-level box, the other inline-level. We refer to one as the principal and the other as the marker, but that is just to describe them for the purposes of that para. There is no global concept of principal box.
16:40:10 <fantasai> rossen: I agree we should move forward with accepting this, but making the undefined part of it explicitly undefined
16:40:37 <fantasai> plinss: Not satisfied with leaving another open issue against it?
16:42:33 <fantasai> fantasai: It's not a technical issue, it has no affect on interpretation of a spec, it's just about tightening up prose. I don't think we need to draw attention to the fact that we're not 100% certain whether the term Principal applies here or not.
16:43:08 <antonp> Bert: I sent you an e-mail today justifying the need for "principal box" as a label; I think it's useful to define these things like block container element
16:43:16 <SteveZ> SteveZ: Since Principle is used to identify which elements are Block-container-elements, we should be clear about the handling of inline boxes
16:43:19 <fantasai> fantasai: I also don't think this is something to spend this much time on on the call
16:43:35 <SimonSapin> I can’t connect anymore in SIP nor with the EU gateway
16:43:42 <fantasai> SteveZ, regardless of whether inline boxes are principal or not, they're definitely not blocks so it doesn't matter :)
16:44:09 <glazou> SimonSapin: Zakim has hickups from time to time :(
16:44:10 <fantasai> plinss: Is everyone happy with accepting Anton's text and leaving principal box of inlines issue open?
16:44:32 <glazou> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:44:32 <Zakim> On the phone I see plinss, fantasai, lstorset, stearns, bradk, [Microsoft], CesarAcebal, antonp, arronei_, +1.206.324.aacc, rbetts, ??P63, glazou, SteveZ, SimonSapin (muted),
16:44:35 <antonp> Bert, do you object to what plinss just said@?
16:44:36 <Zakim> ... dbaron, florian, smfr, +1.415.615.aaee, Rossen, koji
16:44:36 <Zakim> [Microsoft] has JohnJansen
16:44:39 <fantasai> fantasai: Are there any objections to accepting Anton's text and leaving the issue open?
16:44:46 <fantasai> RESOLVED: accept Anton's proposal
16:45:04 <glazou> SimonSapin: weird, you're still liste on the call
16:45:05 <fantasai> Topic: Spec Shortnames
16:45:13 <fantasai> plinss: We have three proposals for how to rename our spec shortnames
16:45:21 <SimonSapin> network dropped for me for a while
16:45:31 <fantasai> plinss: get a resolution on which direction to move in, then come up with concrete proposal
16:45:36 <fantasai> plinss: Any comments on which naming system to use?
16:46:01 <fantasai> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/shortnames#versioned-names
16:46:12 <SimonSapin> B or C are fine, A is confusing
16:46:13 <fantasai> dbaron prefers C
16:46:24 <Zakim> + +33.9.52.34.aaff
16:46:32 <dbaron> A is cssN-foo, B is css-fooN, C is css-foo-N
16:46:34 <fantasai> glazou: I prefer C, too. The N is not related to CSS, it's related to the document
16:46:37 <SteveZ> +1 for C
16:46:40 <fantasai> plinss: C
16:46:41 <fantasai> florian: C
16:46:41 <SimonSapin> Zakim, +33.9.52.34.aaff is me
16:46:41 <Zakim> +SimonSapin; got it
16:46:53 <fantasai> fantasai: So! Anyone for not C? :)
16:46:54 <arronei_> arronei_: C
16:46:58 <fantasai> RESOLVED: C
16:47:10 <fantasai> plinss: other question on wiki page was when do we move shortnames over to next level
16:47:13 <fantasai> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/shortnames#unversioned-names
16:47:20 <fantasai> Florian: I would say A
16:47:48 <fantasai> szilles: I'm confused by that. We create version N+1 when we're trying to split it into pieces we can do now vs later
16:48:01 <SimonSapin> Does B imply waiting for the next snapshot?
16:48:58 <dbaron> A == CR, B == Snapshot acceptance, C == REC
16:49:27 <fantasai> ...
16:49:36 <fantasai> Florian: What's the criteria for snapshot?
16:49:41 <dbaron> I think I probably also lean towards B.
16:49:43 <fantasai> fantasai: p...]
16:49:43 <glazou> someone should kill the people laughing loudly in the background...
16:49:49 <fantasai> Florian: In that case, I prefer B
16:49:51 <fantasai> sylvaing: me too
16:50:04 <fantasai> ?: Would motivate updating snapshot more often
16:50:13 <fantasai> plinss: Would update redirects when publishing snapshot
16:50:27 <fantasai> Florian: Only worry with option B that since it's not very systematic, would postpone
16:50:34 <SteveZ> I can live with option B
16:50:36 <fantasai> Florian: Otherwise it's the right level
16:50:44 <fantasai> plinss: Snapshot is note, so we can update quickly
16:50:47 <fantasai> plinss: Objections to B?
16:50:52 <fantasai> RESOLVED: B
16:51:24 <fantasai> SteveZ: Should we reopen whether snapshots should be REC or not?
16:51:48 <fantasai> plinss: There's nothing testable. How do you prove a snapshot?
16:51:57 <fantasai> plinss: could revisit in the future, don't want to open now
16:52:11 <fantasai> Topic: Max Viewport Size on reftests
16:52:17 <fantasai> plinss: min or max?
16:52:21 <fantasai> dbaron: The viewport size
16:52:49 <fantasai> fantasai: The test should still work on larger sizes
16:52:57 <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2012Sep/0020.html
16:53:25 <fantasai> dbaron: It's the minimum size at which you should run the test, and the maximum size at which the test should have information for determining pass/fail
16:54:01 <fantasai> fantasai: Mozilla proposed 600x600, Chrome and Opera don't need to go smaller
16:54:15 <fantasai> arronei: Don't think we'd need to go maller
16:54:37 <fantasai> rossen: Is this for phones?
16:54:56 <fantasai> Leif: We run at desktop resolution only
16:55:05 <fantasai> Florian: May want to run on phones, too
16:55:10 <fantasai> Leif: Might want to, but don't now
16:55:16 <fantasai> Leif: Could look into it more closely
16:55:36 <fantasai> florian: Yeah, because even if not needed right now, if we decide to do it don't want to rewrite all the tests.
16:55:41 <fantasai> Leif: Ok, will look more into that
16:55:57 <fantasai> fantasai: Do MS or Apple need to look into it more?
16:56:08 <fantasai> smfr: We run at 800x600, and on mobile we scale down
16:56:23 <fantasai> smfr: For tests that test viewport specifically, might need to run at 320xwhatever
16:56:27 <fantasai> MS: Same scenario we have
16:56:39 <fantasai> dbaron: So if you run tests at 800x600...
16:56:46 <fantasai> dbaron: If ppl right tests at resolutions higher than this
16:56:57 <fantasai> dbaron: Might have existing tests not compatible with smaller resolution
16:57:02 <fantasai> dbaron: This is the reason we don't want to go too small
16:57:15 <fantasai> dbaron: but also have some devices where, for some reason...
16:58:01 <fantasai> smfr: 600x600 sounds constraining for some kinds of tests
16:58:20 <fantasai> dbaron: There are a lot of tests you make things x pixels wide, no reason to pick that number and not half that number
16:58:30 <fantasai> smfr: More regression tests, where putting things side by side in same test (?)
16:59:13 <fantasai> ?: What kinds of tests would be included here? No idea how big an impact this decision would have
16:59:24 <fantasai> Florian: Most tests draw a green box, could be just 100px wide
16:59:56 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
16:59:57 <glazou> s/?/lstorset
17:00:00 <fantasai> fantasai: Ok, people should look into it. We can come back next week.
17:00:17 <fantasai> dbaron: We need to know whether people have a reason to run at a smaller size
17:00:28 <fantasai> dbaron: Also whether anyone has a pool of tests planning to contribute that they can't bring down to this size
17:00:40 <fantasai> plinss: Haven't gotten much feedback on module prioritization, please do that
17:00:45 <fantasai> sylvaing: what is it for?
17:00:58 <fantasai> plinss: Will inform glazou and I how to reset priorities for the group
17:01:04 <fantasai> sylvaing: we've answered those things for charters
17:01:14 <fantasai> sylvaing: what are we going to do differently this time?
17:01:27 <fantasai> glazou: When we did this for the charter, it was also to know what were documents we wanted in the charter
17:01:35 <fantasai> glazou: Not the case here. All documents listed here are in scope.
17:01:43 <fantasai> sylvaing: Every meeting I go to, we start working on some new thing
17:01:55 <fantasai> sylvaing: Don't allocate time based on priorities
17:02:06 <fantasai> sylvaing: Is the plan to take some action based on priorities?
17:02:10 <fantasai> glazou: It's part of the plan
17:02:18 <fantasai> dbaron: One thing I found difficult to answer was
17:02:25 <fantasai> dbaron: How to balance newer specs vs older specs
17:02:41 <fantasai> dbaron: Tried to balance by trying to think about, if we spent time on issues for one or the other, which was higher priority?
17:02:50 <fantasai> dbaron: But that will also change over time, because function of where they are in the process
17:02:59 <fantasai> dbaron: Put down priorities for right now, but won't be valid for the long time
17:03:07 <fantasai> glazou: Not looking for long-term answer, looking for prioritization now.
17:03:17 <fantasai> sylvaing: I'd love to hear more on what you're thinking of to do with the answers
17:03:22 <fantasai> sylvaing: Fuzzy on that
17:03:34 <fantasai> glazou: You said yourself we have 50 docs on the radar, and new ones popping up every other week
17:03:38 <fantasai> glazou: We have limited time
17:03:49 <fantasai> glazou: need to dedicate our efforts on a single set of documents that we can move on rec track quite fast
17:03:57 <fantasai> glazou: we think such a list from you guys could help
17:04:12 <fantasai> sylvaing: So we're talking about when ppl bring up issue for telecon, and not high priority, you'll say no?
17:04:23 <fantasai> glazou: If it's low priority, and we have high priority issues, yes.
17:04:28 <fantasai> glazou: That's exactly what we did for CSS2.1
17:04:41 <fantasai> plinss: If we have time available, we'll spend it on low priority issue. But if not, then no.
17:04:53 <fantasai> glazou: We did this informally already
17:05:07 <fantasai> glazou: We'd discuss on Tuesday, this item isn't critical, so not add it to agenda
17:05:22 <fantasai> glazou: We want to do this based on your feedback, not just our opinions
17:05:31 <fantasai> glazou clarifies that invited experts rae expected to respond
17:05:47 <Zakim> -smfr
17:05:48 <Ms2ger> s/rae/are/
17:05:50 <fantasai> fantasai: So, is Flexbox going to CR?
17:05:52 <fantasai> glazou: Yes
17:06:09 <fantasai> fantasai: So how is it getting there? When/who is publishing?
17:06:32 <fantasai> Meeting closd.
17:06:35 <Zakim> -stearns
17:06:36 <Zakim> -antonp
17:06:37 <Zakim> -SteveZ
17:06:38 <Zakim> -glazou
17:06:39 <Zakim> -bradk
17:06:39 <Zakim> - +1.206.324.aacc
17:06:40 <Zakim> -dbaron
17:06:41 <Zakim> -plinss
17:06:44 <Zakim> -CesarAcebal
17:06:45 <Zakim> -florian
17:06:47 <Zakim> -rbetts
17:06:49 <Zakim> - +1.415.615.aaee
17:06:51 <Zakim> -fantasai
17:06:53 <Zakim> -koji
17:06:55 <Zakim> -Rossen
17:06:56 <lstorset> lstorset has left #css
17:06:57 <Zakim> -arronei_
17:07:00 <Zakim> -lstorset
17:07:01 <Zakim> -SimonSapin.a
17:07:03 <Zakim> -??P63
17:07:31 <glazou> fantasai: ping
17:07:38 <fantasai> glazou: pong
17:07:50 <glazou> fantasai: sending you the minutes by email, they're archived only on w3t-archive
17:08:03 <fantasai> glazou: Ok
17:08:15 <fantasai> glazou: Was there a problem? Is that why you did not announce to the CSSWG that it is moving to CR?
17:08:30 <glazou> no ; I _just_ forgot because I'm human :-)
17:08:42 <fantasai> okay :)
17:08:43 <fantasai> that's good
17:08:58 <glazou> and Bert is actioned by the minutes to do the work on flexbox
17:09:07 <fantasai> ok
17:09:07 <glazou> fantasai: sent
17:09:38 <glazou> fantasai: two kids around here, I need to go
17:09:41 <fantasai> ok
17:09:44 <glazou> bye
17:09:57 <SimonSapin1> SimonSapin1 has joined #css
17:10:38 <fantasai> Bert: Will Flexbox be published tomorrow?
17:11:41 <Bert> Flexbox will be published and announced tomorrow, but dated the 18th. The webmaster didn't have time yesterday. (The real webmaster is on holiday, Alexandre fills in.)
17:11:51 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, SimonSapin, in Style_CSS FP()12:00PM
17:11:54 <Zakim> Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
17:11:54 <Zakim> Attendees were plinss, fantasai, jdaggett, lstorset, stearns, bradk, [IPcaller], +34.60.940.aaaa, +93550aabb, +1.206.324.aacc, +1.253.307.aadd, CesarAcebal, rbetts, antonp,
17:11:54 <Zakim> ... arronei_, SteveZ, glazou, JohnJansen, SimonSapin, dbaron, florian, smfr, +1.415.615.aaee, [Microsoft], Rossen, koji
17:12:02 <fantasai> Bert: Ok, is the draft up-to-date?
17:12:20 <fantasai> Bert: I put in some changes last Friday when I emailed the group
17:12:24 <fantasai> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2012JulSep/0344.html
17:12:34 <fantasai> Bert: There were some requests for clarifications, and I update the Changes section etc.
17:12:40 <Bert> I hope it was up to date when I made the CR on Monday. :-)
17:12:46 <fantasai> okay :)
17:12:54 <fantasai> Monday is after Friday, so we should be good ;)
17:13:05 <fantasai> Thanks Bert!
17:13:42 <Bert> I noticed the updated status section. I had already added almost the same text myself last week in my local copy, but I threw it away and used yours instead
17:14:16 <fantasai> heh
17:15:24 <antonp> antonp has left #css
17:15:51 <sylvaing> Until we rename Monday and Friday at Last Call 
17:16:09 <nimbu> ahahaha
17:16:17 <nimbu> sylvaing!!!
17:16:27 <sylvaing> nimbu!!!
17:16:36 <nimbu> :)) i meant it as sylvaing+++
17:16:39 <nimbu> but i typoed.
17:56:30 <nimbu> nimbu has joined #css
18:04:57 <rhauck> rhauck has joined #css
18:06:36 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #css
18:13:03 <arno> arno has joined #css
18:29:00 <nimbu1> nimbu1 has joined #css
18:29:28 <nimbu> nimbu has joined #css
18:30:49 <nimbu> nimbu has joined #css
18:37:13 <SimonSapin> SimonSapin has joined #css
18:58:14 <Zakim> Zakim has left #css
19:04:28 <nimbu> nimbu has left #css
19:56:04 <nimbu> nimbu has joined #css
19:58:09 <nimbu> nimbu has joined #css
20:02:28 <nimbu> nimbu has left #css
20:22:39 <drublic> drublic has joined #css
20:39:40 <miketaylr> miketaylr has joined #css
20:51:09 <nimbu> nimbu has joined #css
21:01:27 <nimbu1> nimbu1 has joined #css
21:13:26 <arno> arno has joined #css
21:15:42 <antonp> antonp has joined #css
21:22:01 <arno> arno has joined #css
21:23:53 <shepazu> shepazu has joined #css
21:37:23 <jarek> jarek has joined #css
22:02:59 <antonp1> antonp1 has joined #css
22:05:44 <drublic> drublic has joined #css
23:06:10 <nimbu> nimbu has joined #css
23:17:23 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #css
23:38:19 <arno> arno has joined #css