w3 :: #css

15 Mar 2017
15:56Rossen_trackbot, start meeting
15:56* trackbot is preparing a teleconference.
15:56RRSAgentlogging to http://www.w3.org/2017/03/15-css-irc
15:56trackbotRRSAgent, make logs public
15:56RRSAgentI have made the request, trackbot
15:56trackbotZakim, this will be Style_CSS FP
15:56Zakimok, trackbot
15:56trackbotMeeting: Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Working Group Teleconference
15:56trackbotDate: 15 March 2017
15:56Rossen_present+
15:57* tantek likes item 5
15:57daelpresent+ dael
15:57plinsspresent+
15:57daelScribeNick: dael
15:57antennapresent+
15:57bdcpresent+ bdc
15:58rachelandrewpresent+
15:58astearnspresent+
15:59antonppresent+ antonp
16:00melanierichardspresent+
16:00glazoupresent+ glazou
16:00tantekpresent+
16:00gsnedderspresent+
16:01daelRossen_: We'll give it another minute or two.
16:01glazoutantek, I think we hear your kbd loud and clear when you type
16:01tgrahampresent+
16:01alex_antennahousepresent+
16:01daelRossen_: is fantasai on?
16:02gsneddersI want to mention <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2017Mar/0042.html> wrt merging the test repos.
16:03daelgsnedders: I want to mention this^ email which we can do without fantasai
16:03dbaronPresent+
16:03ChrisLpresent+
16:03daelRossen_: Let&#39;s start.
16:03TabAtkinsPresent+
16:03daelRossen_: As usual, any extra agenda items?
16:04daelfantasai: I&#39;d like to go over the flexbox status.
16:04bradkpresent+
16:04daelfantasai: Anything we can do to get it republished soon-ish.
16:04daelRossen_: Perhaps that will be covered in agenda #5.
16:04daelRossen_: If we don&#39;t cover it then we&#39;ll put it seperately.
16:04daelRossen_: Anything else I might have missed?
16:05daelRossen_: I&#39;m only hearing gsnedders addition
16:05daelTopic: Grid DoC
16:05daelTopic: minmax max value
16:06fantasaihttps://drafts.csswg.org/css-grid/issues-cr-2016
16:06fantasaihttps://drafts.csswg.org/css-grid/issues-cr-2016#issue-1
16:06daelfantasai: First open issue is #1 which is about...we got a message from Ali Willians explaining a case when you have conflicting min and max constraints the min wins generally, but this is a case where max should win
16:06fantasaihttps://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2016Oct/0076.html
16:07daelfantasai: WE closed as no change for consistancy, but his use case is value and it would make more sense if it&#39;s possible to express this sizing contraint where the max...in this use case the optimal was 20% and the max was 250px and that wasn&#39;t working out.
16:07Rossen_... hoping we&#39;re not going to end up with !max-width :)
16:07* gregwhitworth on irc only stuck in traffic
16:07daelfantasai: This is a totally valid use case, it would be nice to have a syntax to express it. Maybe fore next grid release or something.
16:08daelfantasai: Here&#39;s the example^
16:08fantasaigrid-template-columns: 1fr repeat(4, minmax(20%, 250px)) 1fr
16:08daelfantasai: [explains example]
16:08daelfantasai: Perfectly reasonable. We can&#39;t solve other than nest the grid in a larger container.
16:09daelfantasai: Proposal is we reject the proposal, but also request that if the WG has a reasonable way to express this raise an issue so we can add this.
16:09daelRossen_: Comments?
16:09daelrachelandrew: It&#39;s not a use case that&#39;s come up from anyone else and I&#39;ve heard lots this week. It feels like there will be lots of little things like this. I feel we&#39;re going to get an awful lot of this kind of use case as people get their hands on grid.
16:10daelRossen_: I would agree with rachelandrew and fantasai. Pushing this to a different level or in the sizing spec is the path forward. Having it punted from L1 grid sounds right.
16:10daelRossen_: If there are no other thoughts we can call for resolution
16:10daelRossen_: Objections to reject this issue for L2 of grid?
16:10daels/L2/L1
16:11daelfantasai: We want to solve the use case, but perhaps in a slightly different way.
16:11daelRossen_: We can work it out, but not in grid L1
16:11daelfantasai: In L2 we won&#39;t invert hte order of priority for min/max. We&#39;d solev the use case in another way.
16:11daelRossen_: For sure. I&#39;m jsut saying let&#39;s cross this bridge when we come to it.
16:11daelRESOLVED: reject this issue for L1 of grid
16:11fantasaiAnd I&#39;m saying we&#39;re not crossing any bridges that invert the order of minmax prioity
16:12fantasaihttps://drafts.csswg.org/css-grid/issues-cr-2016#issue-8
16:12fantasaihttps://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/798
16:12daelTopic: dominant-baseline should apply to grid/flex containers
16:12daelfantasai: it&#39;s a css inline layout issue. Max was pointing out that applies to doesn&#39;t apply to grid & flexbox and it should. I made the change to inline but want the WG to say okay.
16:13daelfantasai: Change was to CSS Inline
16:13fantasaihttps://drafts.csswg.org/css-inline/#dominant-baseline-property
16:13mylespresent+ myles
16:13daelfantasai: There&#39;s a dominant baseline prop. Link ^
16:13daelRossen_: Any feedback?
16:13daelRossen_: Other opinions?
16:14daelRossen_: Anyone feel we shouldn&#39;t apply dominant baseline to grid and flex containers?
16:14fantasaifantasai: also applied alignment-baseline to flex/grid items
16:14daelRESOLVED: Accept text
16:14fantasaihttps://drafts.csswg.org/css-grid/issues-cr-2016#issue-16
16:14fantasaihttps://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/958
16:14dbaronI find it a bit curious that baseline-shift applies to fewer elements than alignment-baseline and dominant-baseline
16:14daelTopic: Defer subgrid
16:15* tantek perks up
16:15daelfantasai: He&#39;s asking to drop subgrid because he wants to iff you can impl subgrid independantly to each axis. TabAtkins and I said if you want something you want changed and that destabilizes the spec we&#39;ll drop it, but so far you&#39;ve jsut said I&quot;m not sure about the spec. That&#39;s our position, but we wanted to know the WGs thoughts
16:15daelRossen_: So your opinion is not change the current spec and wait for a counter proposal that negates or improves the current solution?
16:15daelfantasai: Yes
16:16daeltantek: Is anyone else impl subgrid?
16:16daelRossen_: FF is.
16:16daeltantek: Which is Mats.
16:16tantekhttps://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/958
16:16dael[issue clarification]
16:17SteveZpresent+ SteveZ
16:17fantasais/iff/see if/
16:17Rossen_q?
16:17* Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
16:18tantekq+
16:18* Zakim sees tantek on the speaker queue
16:18daelrachelandrew: I&#39;ve commented on the thread. I&#39;d love to see Mats...I&#39;ve written my concerns about locked to axis and I&#39;d love to see Mats investigation on if it&#39;s possible to do it more like the original. It would be a shame if he doesn&#39;t get to do that. I&#39;m concerned about how usefult he spec will be. I don&#39;t want him to feel the investigation would not be useful.
16:18daelTabAtkins: No one is holding up Mats but himself. He think&#39;s we&#39;re not open to changing and we are.
16:18daelfantasai: Maybe he wants us to pull so no one else impl until there&#39;s investigation?
16:19daelRossen_: We certainly welcome the feedback. If Mats is under a different opinion I&#39;d love to have him join a call or meeting to make sure he feels supported. If he has any impl experience and feedback with the current proposal we&#39;d love ot hear it. This is why we have CRs and call for impl feedback.
16:20daelRossen_: In the lack of concrete proposal given the work that&#39;s gone in already to subgrid and the feedabck we have gotten I don&#39;t believe there&#39;s enough merit to remove it and say we&#39;ll have something better, trust us.
16:20fantasaidbaron, that&#39;s a fair point :) I guess there&#39;s no reason it couldn&#39;t apply to baseline alignment in general...
16:20* tantek wonders if Rossen is speaking with chair hat or MSFT hat now
16:20fantasaiACTION: fantasai extend applies to for baseline-shift to match alignment-baseline
16:20* trackbot is creating a new ACTION.
16:20* RRSAgent records action 1
16:20trackbotCreated ACTION-836 - Extend applies to for baseline-shift to match alignment-baseline [on Elika Etemad - due 2017-03-22].
16:20daelRossen_: Also, we&#39;ve made significant efforts to make the symmetricity of grid in respect to rows and columns and it would be unfortunate if we spec subgrid to favor one or the other.
16:21Rossen_q?
16:21* Zakim sees tantek on the speaker queue
16:21daelRossen_: And I was speaking as a chair. I&#39;ll say if I&#39;m using my MSFT hat.
16:21* fantasai doesn&#39;t have any objection to whichever way we go
16:22Rossen_ack tantek
16:22* Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
16:22daeltantek: To see if I can communicate impressions from Mats, I think TabAtkins&#39;s characerization is true, but when there&#39;s a spec in CR it indicates a very specific direction and there&#39;s no indication in the spec text other directions are possible and does communicate strongly by its state. It&#39;s reasonable for Mats to feel that way. I think anyone outside the WG would have a similar impression.
16:23daeltantek: Mats afaict is the impl that&#39;s most ahead on this work and the subgrid is calling for impl feedback. I think we shouldn&#39;t just prefer...even vague impl feedback trumps aspirational percision. I&#39;m not asking to replace the current spec, but it&#39;s reasonable to indicate with spec text that there&#39;s an alternative being investigated.
16:24daeltantek: That&#39;s useful to show Mats his work is valuable and communicate to other impl that this is useful to the WG and welcome. And say that we are looking for alternatives here.
16:24rachelandrew+1 to tantek&#39;s proposal
16:24daeltantek: That&#39;s my proposal, but of course we&#39;re in CR which brings up should we drop
16:25daelTabAtkins: There&#39;s no alternate prop. It&#39;s jsut vaguely we should go back to thinking about independent axes. I recall when the original subgrid came up I wanted to push another level. IT was author and dev concerns that made us look at a simplified version for this draft. If the group now feels it&#39;s more important to get it right and push it, that&#39;s fine. That&#39;s my original position.
16:25Rossen_+1 to all of what TabAtkins said
16:26daeltantek: That&#39;s fair. There is a bit of, we are learning more about this conceptal space as we impl. There is new info, like we just heard from rachelandrew where there is now openness to biasing toward a correct version later.
16:27daeltantek: The specific proposal would be that we either seperate it out or add at least an informative paragraph saying we&#39;re considering an alternative design that&#39;s independent on each axis. I agree it&#39;s vague but something that communicates it&#39;s happening. I think you&#39;ll see more specific proposals follow up.
16:27daelTabAtkins: Mat&#39;s isn&#39;t just a third policy. We can tell him please work on this. We can point him to the minutes and communicate.
16:27Rossen_q+
16:27* Zakim sees Rossen_ on the speaker queue
16:28daeltantek: That&#39;s part 2, but part 2 is to more implementers broadly.
16:28daelTabAtkins: Igalia monitors the issues list for grid.
16:28daelfantasai: Yes, Igalia & Mats follow minutes, but it&#39;s our job to be clear to everyone, including those that only read docs. If there&#39;s something important to tell impl it should be in the doc.
16:29daelfantasai: Given the current state, we&#39;re shipping grid with everyone except subgrid. Given that I don&#39;t object to putting that in L2 and doing that as a WD for comments.
16:29tantekI&#39;d like to hear rachelandrew&#39;s opinion on moving subgrid to a separate spec and spinning that up
16:29daelfantasai: I think Mats wanting to investigate is fantastic. We didn&#39;t do it because Igalia thought it was impossible. IT would be great if they could talk and agree it&#39;s possible.
16:30daelTabAtkins: I agree which is why this needs to start in an issue with a proposal. I know how hard it was to think about originally.
16:30fantasaiI don&#39;t think it was that hard to think about.
16:31tantekat this point would anyone strongly object to moving subgrid to a separate spec?
16:31tantek / level
16:31daelRossen_: As an impl or as a chair, I don&#39;t have a strong objection to moving subgrid out into a different spec or keeping it in spec with an explicit sentence that welcomes additional contributions. I also don&#39;t see how this is any different then any work in other specs. They are there to invite impl and through this impl feedback get specs that are more technically sounds as well as from user PoV
16:31fantasaiI would object to moving it to moving it to a different module, yes :) Not to a different level.
16:32daelRossen_: If ther only thing we&#39;re considering is an impl that feels unheard, please invite Mats to join us so he feels all his ideas/obj/proposals have been heard.
16:32daeltantek: I can follow up with Mats directly
16:32daelRossen_: In addition to the +1 to TabAtkins I also believe grid would have been done earlier if we didn&#39;t have spin cycles for subgrid
16:32tantekq+ fantasai
16:32* Zakim sees Rossen_, fantasai on the speaker queue
16:32tantekack Rossen_
16:32* Zakim sees fantasai on the speaker queue
16:33* gsnedders we can hear someone typing loudly, I think tantek?
16:33* tantek sorry
16:33daelRossen_: Based on the impl we had with grid when the initial proposal came through we know subgrid would be difficult. BUt there was no obj to persuing that simple version. There hasn&#39;t been another version that came through.
16:33daelRossen_: Here we are discussing this again so it would be good to take an option so we can push forward on REC track for grid
16:33Rossen_q?
16:33* Zakim sees fantasai on the speaker queue
16:33* dbaron ack fantasai
16:33* Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
16:33Rossen_ack fantasai
16:33* Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
16:34daelfantasai: In terms of cycles we spent on subgrid, we spent more time talking about it should be there or not instead of technical. Also as an editor I spent a miniscule amount of time on subgrid vs the rest.
16:34tantekq+ to note I think separating subgrid to another spec will be a win-win, help give subgrid room to consider multiple proposals, and help Grid advance toward REC
16:34* Zakim sees tantek on the speaker queue
16:34daelRossen_: Agreed.
16:34tantekq-
16:34* Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
16:34tantekRossen is making my point
16:34daelRossen_: Do we want to keep subgrid in the grid spec or move it out on its own so it can signal additional and stronger request for feedbacn & changes?
16:35daelTabAtkins: I think we should only move things that are unstable and not ready for this level.
16:35* fantasai suggests a straw poll so we can move on
16:35ChrisLIt sounds like it is less developed than the rest of grid.
16:35astearns+1 to moving to the next level, for stability reasons
16:35ChrisLso, push to next level
16:35daelRossen_: Okay. We have 3 impl and none have subgrid. I think this speaks volumes.
16:35tantekChrisL - it is, less implemented by far (like none vs 3)
16:35daelrachelandrew: I think move.
16:35fantasaiChrisL, I&#39;m not sure that it&#39;s less stable, it just has received less attention because it hasn&#39;t been implemented yet
16:35Rossen_q?
16:35* Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
16:36daelrachelandrew: I really wanted it to be impl and at the time Igalia had the revision there was hope there would be impl. If we&#39;re talking changes it&#39;s better to move so that we say we&#39;re not expecting impl. And it tells authors we want more feedback. We can say we moved it so we can talk about what we need.
16:36tantek+1 rachelandrew
16:36daelRossen_: Let&#39;s try and have a resolution. Objections to moving subgrid to its own module?
16:36astearnsnext level of grid, not it&#39;s own
16:36daelfantasai: I do. I don&#39;t want another module. We can move to grid 2.
16:37tantekI&#39;m fine with level 2
16:37gsneddersI&#39;m +1 on what fantasai said
16:37ChrisLagree with fantasai
16:37daelrachelandrew: Yes, I meant a level 2. not a seperate subgrid weird thing.
16:37ChrisL+1 to grid l2
16:37daelRossen_: Okay, grid level 2. Objections to moving subgrid to level 2 of grid?
16:37daelRESOLVED: Move subgrid to level 2 of Grid
16:38daelRossen_: And again, tantek please reach out to Mats and make sure he feels he&#39;s being heard and supported here.
16:38daelTabAtkins: Can we please get Mats to join the WG?
16:38daelRossen_: Is he not?
16:38daelTabAtkins: I don&#39;t think officially.
16:38daelRossen_: So tantek you can follow up on that too.
16:38fantasaiWe should have all the Igalia and Mozilla devs who participate in GitHub to have edit privileges in the repo
16:38daeltantek: I can ask if he wants to officially join. I&#39;ll do my best to facilitate the communication. I can&#39;t force him to join.
16:39daelfantasai: I&#39;m skipping issue #15. I have #17 A question about if fr are a length
16:40daelfantasai: We said no, but it raised if they should be combinable in calc.
16:40mylesdo you have a link for this?
16:40fantasaihttps://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/955
16:40daelfantasai: I wanted to get a resolution and see if there&#39;s interest in adding that.
16:40daelfantasai: to a future level
16:40daelTabAtkins: fr isn&#39;t a length, It&#39;s length adjecent but you can&#39;t combine it with lengths.
16:41daelRossen_: I would further that that I always thought of fr like auto for purposes of distributing space. For that reason we don&#39;t consider auto as combinable
16:41daelfantasai: Yet. It&#39;s been requested.
16:41daelTabAtkins: And when we deal with that we can reconsider. As of now I think we should jsut resolve.
16:41daelfantasai: fr are not and will not be combinable with length and % values. Reconsider when auto values are combinable.
16:42daelRossen_: Sounds good.
16:42daelRossen_: Objections?
16:42fantasaiproposed resolution: length & frs are not combinable, but will reconsider if/when length & auto are combinable
16:42daelRESOLVED: length & frs are not combinable, but will reconsider if/when length & auto are combinable
16:42daelTopic: republish
16:42daelfantasai: Closing today&#39;s issues, we have one open which is % and we should jsut do an update officially
16:43daelRossen_: I&#39;m in favor.
16:43daelRossen_: Objections?
16:43daelRESOLVED: Republish Grid
16:43daelChrisL: Updated CR?
16:43daelfantasai: Yes.
16:43fantasaihttps://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/523#issuecomment-282771617
16:43tantekare we going to note imminent separation of subgrid?
16:43tantekin this new Grid CR?
16:43tantekcan we at least make a note of that happening soon since we have a resolution?
16:44ChrisLis the draft ready to go now and is the list of changes up to date? So I can start working on a transition request
16:44tanteks/separation of subgrid/moving of subgrid to level 2
16:44daelfantasai: And Rego wanted to confirm the behavior we got for the replaced elements in grid is actually what we want. ANyone with an opinion please look at his comments. If you think it&#39;s wrong post an issue. Otherwise we&#39;ll asumme it&#39;s closed. fremy if you could look it would be appriciated.
16:44daeltantek: Quick question on grid CR. Can we include a note about the move?
16:44daelChrisL: I assumed the republish would inclde the removal.
16:45daeltantek: Great. That&#39;s awesome too. Thanks.
16:45fantasaiChrisL, no, need to pull in edits from today :)
16:45daelTopic: Driving specs to REC
16:45ChrisLok no worries. Disposition of comments?
16:45ChrisLrrsagent, here
16:45RRSAgentSee http://www.w3.org/2017/03/15-css-irc#T16-45-30
16:45tantekdriving specs to REC ++
16:45* tantek is here to help with that :)
16:45daelRossen_: I&#39;ve had multiple discussions with people from W3M, AC members, etc. They always ask me why are we not publishing more REC.
16:46fantasaibecause we need more people like gsnedders
16:46* tantek lol fantasai
16:46daelRossen_: That started a little investigative process on how to move things forward. Are there things to expidite this.
16:46fantasaithat&#39;s not a joke :(
16:46daelRossen_: We&#39;ve had discussions with astearns and here&#39;s our proposal
16:46fantasaicompanies send product managers here, but not super-awesome QA personnel
16:47daelRossen_: If we look trhough all the agendas that we&#39;ve had this year alone we had discussions around almost everything being worked on [lists]
16:47daelRossen_: Usually when we have time for discussion we&#39;re good at filling our call time. However, not every topic helps us move to REC. They don&#39;t come on spec work alone. We need tests.
16:48daelRossen_: Looking through the current specs, the ones that seem closest to driving to REC are: Writing Modes is the closest and we&#39;re waiting on final test reports.
16:48daelRossen_: Text level 3, fonts 3, cascade 3, transforms L1, flexbox, variables
16:48daelRossen_: As a P2 we have grid as the first. The rest are open to discussion.
16:49fantasaiq+
16:49* Zakim sees fantasai on the speaker queue
16:49daelRossen_: So how do we move forward? This is stating the obvious, I think.
16:49daelRossen_: So how do we make progress?
16:49tantekYES
16:49gsneddersq+
16:49* Zakim sees fantasai, gsnedders on the speaker queue
16:49ChrisLq+ to discuss Font 3 testing
16:49* Zakim sees fantasai, gsnedders, ChrisL on the speaker queue
16:49tantekthis is kinda what I was trying to do at the Lisbon f2f
16:49tantekwith what specs are going to CR by end of the year
16:49tanteketc.
16:50tantekRossen++
16:50daelRossen_: Our poposal is to dedicate all those specs as the first tiem for every call until they become recs. WE&#39;ve discssued this in the past and usually the first objections was &quot;if there&#39;s nothing to discuss why have them on the agenda&quot; and it&#39;s because we&#39;re either done or stuck on something. If we&#39;re stuck we need to figure out how to get unstuck.
16:50dbaronspending the first 15 minutes of every phone call asking people why they haven&#39;t done any work really sucks
16:50dbaronlast time we did that I stopped attending the calls
16:50fantasaidbaron, +1
16:50tantekdbaron, true, hopefully we can minimize it to 5 min ;)
16:50daelRossen_: If there&#39;s nothing to do becides tests, let&#39;s get tests written. Perhaps we&#39;ll ask why there are no tests written or none reviewed.
16:51tantekhopefully we can reframe it as &quot;Is there anything we can help with on this spec?&quot;
16:51ChrisLit also sets up an expectation, so people tend to prioritise getting stuff done ahead of the call
16:51daelRossen_: So spending 15 minutes out of every call talking about people not doing what they were supposed to can suck, but it can be really productive. THis is how we got SVG from something chaotic to something organizes and in CR.
16:51fantasaitantek, every call? the same answer almost every call
16:51ChrisLtantek++
16:51tantekI am not a fan of shaming or berating people about &quot;asking people why they haven&#39;t done any work&quot;
16:51tantekin fact I am specifically against any such shaming or berating. totally unproductive and demotivating
16:52daelRossen_: The same objections and comments were made with SVG. We ask these questions because we want to ship the spec. Those of you that ship on a regular cadance know how to do it. THis mandated progress is a way to do it.
16:52* ChrisL myles are you still on the call?
16:52ChrisLq?
16:52* Zakim sees fantasai, gsnedders, ChrisL on the speaker queue
16:52daelRossen_: This is our current proposal from astearns and I.
16:52Rossen_q?
16:52* Zakim sees fantasai, gsnedders, ChrisL on the speaker queue
16:52tantekfantasai, I think it&#39;s legitimate to ask &quot;how can we help?&quot; and also ok for editor(s) to say &quot;no idea or you can&#39;t&quot;, until they think of something that does.
16:52mylesChrisL: yes
16:52daelfantasai: First, on your list of specs, I think conditional rules, cascade & V&U should be on there.
16:52daelRossen_: Cascade was there.
16:52mylesq+
16:52* Zakim sees fantasai, gsnedders, ChrisL, myles on the speaker queue
16:53tantekjust asking the question, and respecting the editor(s) answers would be a good start
16:53daelfantasai: Condituatal rules, V&U, Backgrounds.
16:53daelfantasai: Text 3 isn&#39;t even in CR. I&#39;m in favor of working on them, but there&#39;s things in addition to testing.
16:53tantekq+ to note prioritizing CR->PR, and then &quot;mature&quot; (implemented?) WDs -> CR makes sense
16:53* Zakim sees fantasai, gsnedders, ChrisL, myles, tantek on the speaker queue
16:53tantekack fantasai
16:53* Zakim sees gsnedders, ChrisL, myles, tantek on the speaker queue
16:53gsneddersq-
16:53* Zakim sees ChrisL, myles, tantek on the speaker queue
16:54daelfantasai: Second comment is until there are people doing testing as a significant part of their to do we won&#39;t make significant progress. Most of this work is not telecon work. It needs people that care about gathering tests.
16:54Rossen_q?
16:54* Zakim sees ChrisL, myles, tantek on the speaker queue
16:54gsnedders(I was basically going to say what fantasai did)
16:54daelfantasai: Until we have people that have the time to do that we&#39;ll jsut talk status which is not useful. That&#39;s the problem we need to solve. We need QA people. It doesn&#39;t have to be actual QA people, but people who can QA. It can also be QA people. But if it&#39;s people doing this in their spare time we won&#39;t make progress.
16:55daelRossen_: In reply, once we see the testing work for a spec has taken off we can de-allocate this spec out of conf call. Until then we need to support this work.
16:56daelChrisL: I did publish for css 3 fonts there areas missing tests. A good 2/3 could be tested from myles&#39; font, but it&#39;s mac os only font. I can&#39;t make tests. That&#39;s what I&#39;m stuck on. If I can get unstuck I can commit to tests. I&#39;m asking for help.
16:56gsneddersChrisL: I can potentially take a quick look, FWIW
16:56daelRossen_: Send me an e-mail and I&#39;ll connect you with out fonts guys.
16:56tantek^^^ great example of the need help? ask for help. pattern
16:56Rossen_q?
16:56* Zakim sees ChrisL, myles, tantek on the speaker queue
16:56daelmyles: A couple thoughts.
16:56Rossen_ack ChrisL
16:56tantekack ChrisL
16:56ZakimChrisL, you wanted to discuss Font 3 testing
16:56* Zakim sees myles, tantek on the speaker queue
16:56* Zakim sees myles, tantek on the speaker queue
16:56Rossen_ack myles
16:56* Zakim sees tantek on the speaker queue
16:56daelmyles: I want to echo fantasai that the work remaining doesn&#39;t need to be on the call.
16:56Rossen_q?
16:56* Zakim sees tantek on the speaker queue
16:57daelmyles: Second is I&#39;m still fairly new as an editor so...I would love to take my specs to REC, but I need an mentor. I&#39;m happy to work with ChrisL or anyone else.
16:57* ChrisL thinks Myles is doing a fantastic job editing fonts 4, actually
16:57fantasaiWe should *absolutely* make sure that people feel welcome to bring up any issues that need WG discussion or help from other people. Just don&#39;t think that dedicating time every call to testing work is useful if none of that work is being done and there is therefore nothing to discuss. :)
16:57daelmyles: Point 3, ChrisL the font I&#39;m confident I can make it work, I jsut need time. Which is kidn of like point 1. The people doing this in their spare time, it&#39;s a matter of time and priorities.
16:58tantekfantasai, beyond &quot;feel welcome&quot;, I think it&#39;s important to signal that the group prioritizes that
16:58fantasaitantek, sure
16:58daelRossen_: I totally agree. Time is the only currency we have to spend and if we&#39;re constantly on credit we have problems. I want to force those convos so people can ask for help. Given that you&#39;ve made you the editor and you need mentoring, this is the time for you to ask. If we don&#39;t force those convos we&#39;ll be stuck wehre there are all kinds of things to do and the progrss gets slower.
16:58tantekack tantek
16:58Zakimtantek, you wanted to note prioritizing CR->PR, and then &quot;mature&quot; (implemented?) WDs -> CR makes sense
16:58* Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
16:58Rossen_ack tantek
16:58* Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
16:58fantasaitantek, don&#39;t mind to have a standing agenda item that&#39;s &quot;Does anyone working on testing have anything to discuss&quot;
16:59daeltantek: In responce to fantasai, Rossen_ if we priorities the CRs and then the mature WD as spereate clusters I think that would help.
16:59gsneddersfantasai: is this the &quot;I get a soapbox&quot; item? :P
16:59gsnedders(also :()
17:00daelRossen_: Definitely. THe order we cam eup with was initial review of specs that seem close and stable enough in terms of not too much in terms of changes and mostly impl in browsers. We welcome feedback similar to fantasai&#39;s. We missed some. We can continue to refine the list on the private ML and continue to go forward
17:00mylesChrisL:
17:00daelRossen_: If we don&#39;t start next call, perhaps, we should start the following. If we don&#39;t solidify the set of specs for next week, that is.
17:00fantasaigsnedders: Sure :)
17:00tantekalso we should encourage editors of CRs that need help to prioritize their requests / issues
17:00tantekover new WDs etc.
17:01daelRossen_: We&#39;re on the top of the hour. This is something that will take getting used to, but in the long run I&#39;m hopeful and I think we&#39;ll get good results and send good signals to the rest of the community.
17:01daelfantasai: I jsut want to repeat that if you want to get to rec we need to get QA people in here, not just devs that also write specs.
17:01daelRossen_: Yes. That&#39;s noted. We&#39;ll see what can be done. As a group we have to be able to get our specs to REC.
17:01myleswe are over time
17:02tantekfantasai, agreed, and we can also note that more broadly, e.g. to AC/AB that we are looking for more QA help
17:02daelgsnedders: I jsut want ot mention that the [missed] will happen in under a fortnight
17:02* glazou needs to go, bye
17:02daels/[missed]/merge with webplatform tests
17:02gsneddershttps://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2017Mar/0042.html is the email I mentioned before about that
17:02daelRossen_: Thanks everyone. We&#39;ll chat next week.
17:02gsnedderss/webplatform tests/web-platform-tests/
17:02* dael has to go too. No more minutes if you want them.
17:03mylesbyebye
17:03tantekthanks dael!
17:03tantektrackbot, end meeting
17:03* trackbot is ending a teleconference.
17:03trackbotZakim, list attendees
17:03ZakimAs of this point the attendees have been Rossen_, dael, plinss, antenna, bdc, rachelandrew, astearns, antonp, melanierichards, glazou, tantek, gsnedders, tgraham,
17:03Zakim... alex_antennahouse, dbaron, ChrisL, TabAtkins, bradk, myles, SteveZ
17:03trackbotRRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:03RRSAgentI have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/15-css-minutes.html trackbot
17:03trackbotRRSAgent, bye
17:03RRSAgentI see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2017/03/15-css-actions.rdf :
17:03RRSAgentACTION: fantasai extend applies to for baseline-shift to match alignment-baseline [1]
17:03RRSAgent recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/03/15-css-irc#T16-20-48
19:03* Zakim excuses himself; his presence no longer seems to be needed
22:13gsneddersdoes anything actually use the top-level support files in csswg-test? if they do they&#39;d be broken because of the build system not rewriting URLs...
22:43gsneddersfiled https://github.com/w3c/csswg-test/issues/1235 for that
16 Mar 2017
No messages
   
Last message: 102 days and 17 hours ago