Options:
- # Session Start: Tue Jun 24 00:00:00 2008
- # Session Ident: #css
- # [00:01] * Quits: bjoern (bjoern@84.56.220.82) (Ping timeout)
- # [00:05] * Joins: jdaggett (jdaggett@202.221.217.78)
- # [01:42] <Arron> hixie: ping
- # [01:42] <Hixie> hi
- # [01:43] <Arron> can properties be inherited from :first-line?
- # [01:44] <Hixie> i believe the answer at the moment is yes
- # [01:45] <Hixie> as in <p>hello <em>world</em></p> with ::first-line { color: blue; font-weight: bold; } em { color: inherit; font-weight: normal; } the <em> should be blue... but now that i think about it more i'm not sure
- # [01:46] <Arron> welcome to the club we have been discussing this for an hour
- # [01:46] <Hixie> maybe the last decision was that first-line gets split and the background is special cased...
- # [01:46] <Arron> do you remember a thread on this? Is it possibly in the archive?
- # [01:46] <Hixie> oh there have been dozens over the years
- # [01:47] <Hixie> was there a particular context for the question?
- # [01:47] <Arron> here is our scenatio.
- # [01:47] <Arron> We have an inline block inside a block with first-line
- # [01:49] <Arron> does the inline block get the styles from the first-line of the div or straight from the div.
- # [01:50] <Hixie> i vote for saying that the inline-block is inside the first-line, since iirc the first-line of the div is defined not to be inside the inline-block itself
- # [01:50] <Hixie> (though the inline-block has its own first-line)
- # [01:53] <Arron> so inline-block would inherit the first-line styles
- # [01:59] <Arron> thanks hixie
- # [02:00] <Hixie> we really should fix the specs to be way more explicit about this
- # [02:00] <Hixie> the "describe a model and make browsers implement it" structure that css uses isn't working, imho
- # [02:00] <Hixie> it leaves too many things underdefined
- # [02:01] <Hixie> someone needs to take a top-down approach and just rewrite the css specs in a more imperative way, with real rfc2119-based conformance requirements for everything
- # [02:03] <Arron> I agree but that is a huge undertaking and maybe we need to take that approach for CSS3 specs
- # [02:04] <Arron> for CSS 2.1 I just think we need to suffer and get it out the door.
- # [02:24] <Hixie> yeah i don't think we should do it for 2.1
- # [02:25] <Hixie> it would require someone to work fulltime on editing the css3 specs
- # [02:25] <Hixie> which we just don't have
- # [04:13] * Quits: plinss (peter.lins@15.243.169.71) (Ping timeout)
- # [04:19] * Joins: fantasai (fantasai@66.252.19.122)
- # [06:47] * Joins: bjoern (bjoern@84.56.218.91)
- # [12:46] * Joins: myakura (myakura@222.145.138.216)
- # [16:58] * Quits: myakura (myakura@222.145.138.216) (Quit: Leaving...)
- # [18:13] <fantasai> Bert, can you review the status section of http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-color/ and let the WG know if it's ok?
- # [18:13] <fantasai> IIRC that's the main thing holding back publication as LC
- # [18:19] <Bert> Will do.
- # [18:21] <fantasai> thanks :)
- # [19:42] * Joins: plinss (peter.lins@15.243.169.70)
- # [20:32] <fantasai> plinss: should I check in the selectors spec as 'css3-selectors' or 'selectors3'?
- # [21:14] <fantasai> Bert, can you CC public-css-testsuite on your Ahem message?
- # [21:19] <fantasai> Bert, also what's the status on the CSS2 and CSS1 spec republications?
- # [21:44] <Bert> I was thinking we might want to discuss the Ahem font comments first, before saying anything in public.
- # [21:44] <Bert> As for the CSS2 and CSS1 specs: I have to find out what went wrong.
- # [21:44] <fantasai> well, the rest of the discussion is already public
- # [21:44] <fantasai> ok
- # [21:45] <Bert> The webmaster gave me a date, I prepared the specs, and on the day itself he seemed to have forgotten to publish (and I didn't think about it either :-( )
- # [21:45] <fantasai> hm
- # [21:45] <fantasai> when was that?
- # [21:46] <Bert> I have a few minutes (there is nothing on TV :-) ), let me send a msg to the webmaster right away...
- # [21:46] <fantasai> hehe
- # [21:46] <Bert> Let me see..
- # [21:46] <Bert> Fri 11 April
- # [21:47] <fantasai> as long as it was "we forgot" rather than "we don't want to" we're good :)
- # [21:49] <Bert> The former, I'm sure. I have the mail from ChrisL with the go-ahead and the mail from Jules the webmaster with the dates, and my message to Jules that the docs are dated and ready, and after that nothing.
- # [23:12] * Quits: Arron (arronei@131.107.0.105) (Ping timeout)
- # [23:18] * Joins: Arron (arronei@131.107.0.75)
- # Session Close: Wed Jun 25 00:00:00 2008
The end :)