/irc-logs / w3c / #css / 2014-12-21 / end

Options:

Previous day, Next day

  1. # Session Start: Sun Dec 21 00:00:00 2014
  2. # Session Ident: #css
  3. # [00:02] * Quits: Savago (~adenilson@public.cloak) ("Leaving")
  4. # [00:02] * Quits: adenilson (~anonymous@public.cloak) (adenilson)
  5. # [00:04] * Joins: dbaron (~dbaron@public.cloak)
  6. # [00:31] * Quits: dbaron (~dbaron@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
  7. # [02:02] * plinss is now known as plinss_away
  8. # [02:05] <estellevw> TabAtkins, or anyone insterested in selecotrs: are you around and working. I have a question about hte wording on http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-pseudo-4/#first-line-pseudo example 3
  9. # [02:06] <estellevw> the user agent could simulate start and end tags for span when inserting the fictional tag sequence for ::first-line to get the correct inheritance behavior
  10. # [02:06] <estellevw> border on the span would not be closed and reopened, so the example is kind of a fallacy
  11. # [02:07] * plinss_away is now known as plinss
  12. # [02:12] <liam> estellevw, i'm not sure what you mean by border on the span
  13. # [02:13] * Joins: dbaron (~dbaron@public.cloak)
  14. # [02:13] <estellevw> if you added a border style to the span in that example. the boder does not close and reopen and the span is faked to do in example 3
  15. # [02:14] <estellevw> the example reads:
  16. # [02:14] <estellevw> <P><P::first-line><SPAN class="test"> This is a somewhat long HTML
  17. # [02:14] <estellevw> paragraph that will </SPAN></P::first-line><SPAN class="test"> be broken into several
  18. # [02:14] <estellevw> lines.</SPAN> The first line will be identified
  19. # [02:14] <liam> specs that say, "the user agent shall behave as if" are always treading on somewhat dangerous ground, defining by analogy, but the text you quote is in a non-normative example
  20. # [02:14] <liam> yes, I can see the example
  21. # [02:15] <estellevw> yeah, I know it’s “as if”, but it seems false, so wondering if we should pull that example, or explain it in great detail
  22. # [02:15] <estellevw> or, leave as is
  23. # [02:15] <liam> i see your point - the span element is shown as being interrupted in a way that, since there's no actual p:;first-line element, it isn't interrupted
  24. # [02:15] <estellevw> that might be a better example to put under 2.1.2 with more detail
  25. # [02:16] <estellevw> right
  26. # [02:16] <liam> although I think also it would be conforming behaviour to interrupt the span
  27. # [02:17] <estellevw> if you put a no-repeat bgimage on the span, it would be repeated twice if the exampel were accurate, and if browsers conformed
  28. # [02:17] <liam> e.g. what should span::before do in this case
  29. # [02:17] <liam> or yes, an image
  30. # [02:18] <liam> the problem is that in the HTML spec, and in the CSS specs, there's no vocabulary or mechanism to deal with asynchronous markup, where you really need element boundaries to overlap
  31. # [02:19] <estellevw> this is actually a case were the html 3.2 rules (or whatever old version) that you didn’t have to properly nest elements would make sense
  32. # [02:19] <liam> an additional sentence mentioning, "However, the span element is not in fact broken in two for the purposes of styling"
  33. # [02:19] <liam> well, no, you did have to
  34. # [02:19] <liam> people misread it :)
  35. # [02:20] <liam> it was because of SGML's OMITTAG rules that it looked like you could have overlap
  36. # [02:20] <estellevw> vindicated 16 years later!
  37. # [02:20] <estellevw> thanks liam
  38. # [02:20] <liam> there's been a lot of research into effective ways of representing actual overlap in XML and SGML
  39. # [02:20] <estellevw> i’ll do a pull request to add “However, the span element is not in fact broken in two for the purposes of styling””
  40. # [02:20] <estellevw> i think that helps explain it better
  41. # [02:20] <liam> yeah, see what happens :)
  42. # [02:21] <liam> i.e. I don't know if the editors will agree, but you're right that the example "as if" has problems
  43. # [03:28] * Joins: Savago (~adenilson@public.cloak)
  44. # [04:59] * Quits: estellevw (~estellevw@public.cloak) ("Snuggling with the puppies")
  45. # [05:03] * Quits: Savago (~adenilson@public.cloak) ("Leaving")
  46. # [06:30] * Quits: dbaron (~dbaron@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
  47. # [06:41] * Joins: estellevw (~estellevw@public.cloak)
  48. # [09:20] * Joins: Ms2ger (~Ms2ger@public.cloak)
  49. # [10:26] * Quits: darktears (~darktears@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
  50. # [11:15] * Quits: estellevw (~estellevw@public.cloak) ("Snuggling with the puppies")
  51. # [16:19] * Joins: dbaron (~dbaron@public.cloak)
  52. # [18:14] * Joins: emeyer (~emeyer@public.cloak)
  53. # [18:16] <emeyer> [css-images] Has there been a discussion about radial-gradient sizing (http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-images-3/#valdef-size-length)? One length defines a radius, but two (or two percentages) define a size, according to the spec. Browsers seem to treat both as radii.
  54. # [18:17] <emeyer> I searched www-style but didn’t come up with anything along those lines.
  55. # [18:33] * Joins: estellevw (~estellevw@public.cloak)
  56. # [18:44] <Ms2ger> emeyer, "The first value represents the horizontal radius, the second the vertical radius." <-- am I missing something?
  57. # [18:46] <emeyer> It seems in conflict with “Gives the size of the ellipse explicitly.” If I say an ellipse is 50% 50% in size, I’d expect it to be half the size of the gradient image. But in fact it will be exactly as wide and tall as the gradient image, because of the radii sentence.
  58. # [18:47] <emeyer> Same thing for length, really.
  59. # [19:01] <emeyer> Ms2ger: Given that, it seems like that first sentence should say “Gives the radii of the ellipse explicitly.” Just as the first sentence of the single-length bit says, “Gives the radius of the circle explicitly.” Not “Gives the size of the circle explicitly.”
  60. # [19:03] <Ms2ger> Fair
  61. # [19:20] * Quits: Ms2ger (~Ms2ger@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
  62. # [19:38] * Quits: estellevw (~estellevw@public.cloak) ("Snuggling with the puppies")
  63. # [20:11] <TabAtkins> emeyer: Ah, I didn't think "radius" and "size" were different.
  64. # [20:11] <TabAtkins> emeyer: (I mean, you shouldn't expect the two cases to be substantially different; that would just be crazy. But I can unify the language.)
  65. # [20:12] <emeyer> TabAtkins: agree that they shouldn’t act different, and with unified language.
  66. # [20:13] <emeyer> TabAtkins: probably size and radius are equivalent in math. But that’s the beauty of language, how it yields different assumptions in different contexts. (Did I say "beauty"?)
  67. # [20:13] * leaverou is now known as leaverou_away
  68. # [21:08] * Quits: emeyer (~emeyer@public.cloak) (emeyer)
  69. # [21:08] * Quits: dbaron (~dbaron@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
  70. # [21:16] * leaverou_away is now known as leaverou
  71. # [21:35] * Joins: emeyer (~emeyer@public.cloak)
  72. # [21:48] * leaverou is now known as leaverou_away
  73. # [22:06] * Quits: emeyer (~emeyer@public.cloak) (emeyer)
  74. # [22:07] * Joins: emeyer (~emeyer@public.cloak)
  75. # [22:10] * Joins: dbaron (~dbaron@public.cloak)
  76. # [22:13] * Joins: estellevw (~estellevw@public.cloak)
  77. # [22:38] * Quits: emeyer (~emeyer@public.cloak) (emeyer)
  78. # [22:58] * Joins: emeyer (~emeyer@public.cloak)
  79. # [23:04] * Quits: emeyer (~emeyer@public.cloak) (emeyer)
  80. # Session Close: Mon Dec 22 00:00:00 2014

Previous day, Next day

Think these logs are useful? Then please donate to show your gratitude (and keep them up, of course). Thanks! — Krijn