[CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2008-10-01
fantasai <fantasai.lists <at> inkedblade.net>
2008-10-01 18:24:58 GMT
- Charter has been sent to AC for approval
- RESOLVED: Add to css3-marquee Bert's note:
Note that the 'direction' property is often set by rules
in the UA style sheet based on mark-up in the document,
as recommended in CSS 2.1 [CSS21] section 9.10 ("Text
direction: the 'direction' and 'unicode-bidi' properties").
- RESOLVED: Publish CSS3 Marquee as CR
- Accepted to clarify spec that comments are not allowed inside url()
syntax, pending MSFT's approval.
- RESOLVED: Proposal accepted for CSS2.1 Issue 74
- For CSS2.1 Issue 72, need text that also says that widths of columns
in fixed layout is undefined when table has extra columns after 1st row.
- RESOLVED: For CSS2.1 Issue 76, proposed to rewrite 1st paragraph of
When formatting content in the page model, some content
may end up outside the *current* page box. For example,
an element whose 'white-space' property has the value
'pre' may generate a box that is wider than the page box.
*As another example*, when boxes are positioned absolutely
*or relatively*, they may end up in "inconvenient" locations.
For example, images may be placed on the edge of the page
box or 100,000 meters below the page box.
- RESOLVED: For CSS2.1 Issue 77
accepted Saloni's proposal
with the last sentence changed to
Parts of the fixed position box that are not visible in the
initial containing block will not print.
to TPAC agenda.
====== Full minutes below =====
Saloni Mira Rai
Jason Cranford Teague
<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/10/01-css-irc
Daniel: Any other items for agenda?
Daniel: I tried to get agenda items from both mailing lists, let me know if I missed any
Daniel: regrets from molly, jeffrey, mohamed
Daniel: Charter was sent by IJ to list of AC reps for approval and vote
Daniel: In case they missed it, I suggest you ping your AC reps to let them know that the charter is up for approval
Daniel: In the voter form, the AC rep needs to indicate intent or not to join WG
Daniel: It's important, please don't miss it
Daniel: First issue is about potential change in 'direction' of marquee
<glazou> Note that the 'direction' property is often set by rules
<glazou> in the UA style sheet based on mark-up in the document, as
<glazou> recommended in CSS 2.1 [CSS21] section 9.10 ("Text direction:
<glazou> the 'direction' and 'unicode-bidi' properties").
fantasai: works for me, I think we should add it
RESOLVED: Accepted to add Bert's note
Daniel: Question is shall we publish css3-marquee as CR.
Daniel: Got 2 comments from i18n, above and one other, both are resolved.
Daniel: Any objections to moving to CR?
RESOLVED: Publish CSS3 Marquee as CR
ACTION: Bert publish CSS3 Marquee as CR
<Bert> (Publishing moratorium is 13 Oct - 27 Oct)
Daniel: Many recent comments about spec, mostly from Saloni
Daniel: First one
Peter: The more I think about it, the more I think we should not allow
comments in URLs
Peter: comment delimiters are valid URL syntax, and URLs have a special
Peter: you're not in normal CSS rules
Peter: There are places where you can determine whether it's a comment
or part of URL
Peter: other places where you can't
<dbaron> I agree with Peter about how it should work.
dbaron: Are there any browsers that don't do what you think we should do?
Peter: I talked with zweinberg
Peter: Opera does not allow comments within parentheses
dbaron: I'm ok with the proposal given that
Jason: I did a quick search, don't see anyone using it as a hack either
Peter: IE7 and Gecko allow comments
Daniel: So if proposal is accepted, there's no change for Opera, slight
change for Mozilla and IE
Daniel: David is ok with it
Daniel: What about MS?
dsinger: Anyone know about webkit?
<Bert> Konqueror seems not to allow comments.
ACTION: Saloni return to WG with response about whether proposal is
<Bert> Webkit seems the same as Konqueror.
dbaron: So my understanding is no change to the spec
Daniel: We might need a note saying that it's explicitly forbidden
Peter: There are various bits of text in the spec that talk about comments
Peter: Saying that they're allowed between any tokens
Peter: and URL is one token
ACTION: Peter create note about how URL has its own syntax and parsing rules
Peter: I also noticed that the grammar for URL leaves out a-z and 0-9
dbaron: There might be a range in there that doesn't look like a range
Peter: I didn't see one
dbaron: *-~ is a range, and includes everything you mentioned
fantasai: I am strongly in agreement with the proposal
RESOLVED: Proposal accepted
Saloni: With fixed table layout in CSS, if a row has more columns than
the first row
Saloni: The spec says you shouldn't render those columns, but the
browsers actually do render those cells
Saloni: I understand the value of fixed layout, I think it's important
Saloni: So I propose relaxing the requirement in CSS2.1, and then clarify
in CSS3 what exactly should happen
dbaron: That would leave internal contradictions in the spec
fantasai: we could say that if there are extra cells, rendering is undefined
fantasai: or at least the widths of columns and the table are undefined
<sylvaing> agrees with Elika+Saloni
Saloni: So we'd be saying if you have fixed table layout, and extra cells,
the layout is undefined
ACTION: Saloni propose text for CSS2.1 Issue 75
Saloni: That's resolved, we got an explanation of why this rule is in place
<fantasai> When formatting content in the page model, some content may
end up outside the *current* page box. For example, an element
whose 'white-space' property has the value 'pre' may generate
a box that is wider than the page box. Also, when boxes are
positioned absolutely *or relatively*, they may end up in
"inconvenient" locations. For example, images may be placed
on the edge of the page box or 100,000 meters below the page
Daniel: Change "Also" to "As another example"
RESOLVED: Accepted above proposal
Daniel: "Parts of the fixed position box that are not visible in the
initial containing block will not print"
RESOLVED: Proposal accepted with above change.
Added to agenda for TPAC
fantasai: Jason, I think we'll want your feedback on this issue
<Bert> (Prince shows a fourth option: the box is 500px high on *both*
pages. I don't particularly like that solution.)
fantasai: So I think the distance between the bottom of the last
content on the page that fit and the bottom of the page
should not count as part of the used height
fantasai: So in this case you would still have used height left
over that you use on the next page
fantasai: Whether the background prints in that space (between the
page break and the bottom of the page) is a separate issue
Daniel: Postponed to TPAC
fantasai: I think we need a web designer involved in this discussion
Jason: I should be able to be online 9-5 EST during TPAC
dbaron: Given that anne isn't here, we should postpone that one