/irc-logs / w3c / #css / 2015-06-10 / end

Options:

# Session Start: Wed Jun 10 00:00:00 2015
# Session Ident: #css
# [00:01] * Quits: Florian (~Florian@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
# [00:01] * Joins: Florian (~Florian@public.cloak)
# [00:05] * Quits: lajava (~javi@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [00:08] * Quits: Florian (~Florian@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [00:16] * Quits: antonp1 (~Thunderbird@public.cloak) (antonp1)
# [00:18] * Rossen_away is now known as Rossen
# [00:47] * Rossen is now known as Rossen_away
# [00:48] <TabAtkins> dbaron: Hm, Values shouldn't have a definition for 'inherit'.
# [00:48] <TabAtkins> By which I mean, we *should* be only defining it in Cascade; it might very well still have a V&U dfn, tho. We should remove it, in that case.
# [00:52] * Quits: adenilson (~anonymous@public.cloak) (adenilson)
# [00:53] * Quits: jdaggett (~jdaggett@public.cloak) (jdaggett)
# [01:59] * Joins: jdaggett (~jdaggett@public.cloak)
# [02:10] * Quits: tantek (~tantek@public.cloak) (tantek)
# [02:14] * Quits: renoirb (renoirb@public.cloak) ("Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com")
# [02:25] * Joins: adenilson (~anonymous@public.cloak)
# [02:56] * Quits: dbaron (~dbaron@public.cloak) ("8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.")
# [03:22] * Quits: adenilson (~anonymous@public.cloak) (adenilson)
# [03:23] * Joins: stakagi (~stakagi@public.cloak)
# [03:59] * Quits: stakagi (~stakagi@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [04:13] * Joins: stakagi (~stakagi@public.cloak)
# [04:18] * Joins: JohnMcLear (~JohnMcLear2@public.cloak)
# [05:10] * Joins: tantek (~tantek@public.cloak)
# [05:40] * Quits: tantek (~tantek@public.cloak) (tantek)
# [07:10] * Quits: jdaggett (~jdaggett@public.cloak) (jdaggett)
# [08:15] * Joins: lajava (~javi@public.cloak)
# [08:28] * Joins: Florian (~Florian@public.cloak)
# [08:46] * Joins: tgraham (~user@public.cloak)
# [08:58] * Joins: jdaggett (~jdaggett@public.cloak)
# [09:00] * Quits: stakagi (~stakagi@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [09:03] * Joins: stakagi (~stakagi@public.cloak)
# [09:10] * Joins: Ms2ger (~Ms2ger@public.cloak)
# [09:14] * Rossen_away is now known as Rossen
# [09:14] * heycam|away is now known as heycam
# [09:20] * Quits: Florian (~Florian@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
# [09:21] * Joins: Florian (~Florian@public.cloak)
# [09:23] * Joins: Florian_ (~Florian@public.cloak)
# [09:27] * Joins: svillar (~sergio@public.cloak)
# [09:28] * Quits: Florian (~Florian@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [10:11] * Quits: jdaggett (~jdaggett@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [10:36] * heycam is now known as heycam|away
# [10:45] * Rossen is now known as Rossen_away
# [11:04] * Rossen_away is now known as Rossen
# [11:23] * Quits: stakagi (~stakagi@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
# [11:23] * Joins: stakagi (~stakagi@public.cloak)
# [11:27] * Joins: svillar_ (~sergio@public.cloak)
# [11:29] * Quits: svillar (~sergio@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [11:30] * Joins: antonp (~Thunderbird@public.cloak)
# [11:57] <nikos> Is http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-color/ stuck? Has been sitting on 'Bikeshed Pending' for a while now.
# [12:47] * Rossen is now known as Rossen_away
# [13:14] * Quits: stakagi (~stakagi@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [13:47] * Rossen_away is now known as Rossen
# [13:47] * Joins: plh (plehegar@public.cloak)
# [13:48] * Joins: stakagi (~stakagi@public.cloak)
# [14:03] * heycam|away is now known as heycam
# [14:24] <Florian_> When a test file uses the ahem font, is it sufficient that the flags include "ahem", or should the visible text in the test also say that you need ahem?
# [14:24] <Florian_> I'm trying to reuse a reference file that doesn't talk about it, so I'd rather not duplicate.
# [14:27] <SimonSapin> Florian_: I don’t think or test harness is aware of flags at all. Until we have a fix for https://github.com/servo/servo/issues/6195 , I’d recommend adding an @font-face rule if possible
# [14:27] <SimonSapin> uuuh, wrong channel sorry
# [14:28] <SimonSapin> ignore me :]
# [14:28] <Florian_> SimonSapin: :)
# [14:29] * Florian_ is now known as Florian
# [14:30] <Florian> SimonSapin: But for human readers are we supposed to have a hint that ahem is needed in the test, or can we rely on the testing environment to give sufficient clues?
# [14:30] <Ms2ger> Still, I fully approve of the @font-face solution
# [14:31] * SimonSapin doesn’t believe in non-automated testing
# [14:32] <Ms2ger> Hey, the CSS2.1 tests can be run in just three days!
# [14:32] <Florian> SimonSapin: I am not so much talking about non automated testing, as about self documenting test cases. Automated testing is what you need for regression testing. When you are in the middle of developping something, manually looking at the TC makes sense, and it's better if you can understand it
# [14:32] <Ms2ger> And with the at-rule, you don't need to pay attention to anything :)
# [14:33] <Florian> Ms2ger: As for @font-face, this is tricky when the TC is viewed by humans. It make take a few seconds before ahem is downloaded, and if the viewer makes a judgement on the tc during that time, it could be wrong.
# [14:34] <SimonSapin> doesn’t the viewer have a loading indicator?
# [14:35] <Florian> SimonSapin: For fonts? I don't know, but I am not sure I'd count on it.
# [14:36] * SimonSapin shrugs
# [14:38] * Quits: svillar_ (~sergio@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [14:45] <Florian> having looked at TCs in the repo, the answer is "no, the TC doesn't need to say it uses ahem except in the flags"
# [14:58] * Joins: stakagi_ (~stakagi@public.cloak)
# [15:02] * Quits: stakagi (~stakagi@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [15:08] * Quits: lajava (~javi@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [15:26] * Joins: stakagi (~stakagi@public.cloak)
# [15:31] * Quits: stakagi_ (~stakagi@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [15:40] * Quits: dauwhe_ (~dauwhe@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
# [15:40] * Joins: dauwhe (~dauwhe@public.cloak)
# [16:40] * Joins: stakagi_ (~stakagi@public.cloak)
# [16:44] * Quits: stakagi (~stakagi@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [17:24] * Rossen is now known as Rossen_away
# [17:31] * Joins: glazou (~glazou@public.cloak)
# [17:32] * Joins: lajava (~javi@public.cloak)
# [17:33] * glazou changes topic to 'CSS WG conf call 10-jun-2015 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Jun/0098.html'
# [17:33] * Joins: Zakim (zakim@public.cloak)
# [17:33] * Joins: RRSAgent (rrsagent@public.cloak)
# [17:33] <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/06/10-css-irc
# [17:33] <glazou> Zakim, this will be Style
# [17:33] <Zakim> ok, glazou; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 26 minutes
# [17:34] <glazou> RRSAgent, make logs public
# [17:34] <RRSAgent> I have made the request, glazou
# [17:39] * Joins: renoirb (renoirb@public.cloak)
# [17:45] * Quits: glazou (~glazou@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
# [17:45] * Joins: glazou (~glazou@public.cloak)
# [17:46] * Joins: antenna (~antenna@public.cloak)
# [17:57] * Joins: dael (~dael@public.cloak)
# [17:57] * Joins: dbaron (~dbaron@public.cloak)
# [17:57] * Joins: stakagi (~stakagi@public.cloak)
# [17:58] <glazou> Zakim, code?
# [17:58] <Zakim> the conference code is 78953 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), glazou
# [17:58] <Zakim> Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
# [17:58] <Zakim> +plinss
# [17:58] <Zakim> +dael
# [17:58] <dael> ScribeNick: dael
# [17:58] * dael waves
# [17:58] * Joins: bcampbell (~chatzilla@public.cloak)
# [17:58] * Joins: alex_antennahouse (~458c94ae@public.cloak)
# [17:59] * Quits: dael (~dael@public.cloak) ("Page closed")
# [17:59] * Joins: dael (~dael@public.cloak)
# [17:59] <Zakim> + +34.93.016.aaaa
# [17:59] <antonp> Zakim, aaaa is me
# [17:59] <Zakim> +antonp; got it
# [17:59] <Zakim> +dauwhe
# [17:59] <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
# [17:59] <Zakim> + +1.479.764.aabb
# [17:59] <bcampbell> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
# [17:59] <Zakim> +bcampbell; got it
# [17:59] <Zakim> + +1.631.398.aacc
# [17:59] <Florian> Zakim, I'm one of these
# [17:59] <Zakim> I don't understand 'I'm one of these', Florian
# [18:00] <Zakim> +fantasai
# [18:00] <antonp> Zakim, mute me
# [18:00] <Zakim> antonp should now be muted
# [18:00] <Zakim> - +1.479.764.aabb
# [18:00] <Zakim> +??P13
# [18:00] <Zakim> + +33.1.39.21.aadd
# [18:00] <Zakim> +??P7
# [18:00] <antenna> zakim, aaaa is me
# [18:00] <Zakim> sorry, antenna, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
# [18:00] <glazou> Zakim, aadd is me
# [18:00] <Zakim> +glazou; got it
# [18:00] * Joins: tantek (~tantek@public.cloak)
# [18:00] <antenna> zakim, aacc is me
# [18:00] <Zakim> +antenna; got it
# [18:00] <Zakim> + +1.479.764.aaee
# [18:00] <Florian> Zakim, I am aaee
# [18:00] <Zakim> +Florian; got it
# [18:01] <Zakim> +hober
# [18:01] <glazou> Zakim, mute me
# [18:01] <Zakim> glazou should now be muted
# [18:01] * Joins: BradK (~bradk@public.cloak)
# [18:01] <tgraham> zakim, P13 is me
# [18:01] <Zakim> sorry, tgraham, I do not recognize a party named 'P13'
# [18:01] <tgraham> zakim, ??P13 is me
# [18:01] <Zakim> +tgraham; got it
# [18:02] * glazou will remained muted unless needed, because of caughing
# [18:02] <Zakim> +BradK
# [18:02] <Zakim> + +1.415.231.aaff
# [18:02] <glazou> coughing even
# [18:02] * Quits: stakagi_ (~stakagi@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [18:02] <koji> zakim, +1.415.231.aaff is me
# [18:02] <Zakim> +koji; got it
# [18:02] <Zakim> +[Bloomberg]
# [18:03] <alex_antennahouse> zakim, +1.479.764.aabb may be me
# [18:03] <Zakim> sorry, alex_antennahouse, I do not understand your question
# [18:03] <alex_antennahouse> zakim, +1.479.764.aabb is me
# [18:03] <Zakim> sorry, alex_antennahouse, I do not recognize a party named '+1.479.764.aabb'
# [18:03] * TabAtkins glazou, cough-laughing?
# [18:03] * Joins: andrey-bloomberg (~andrey-bloomberg@public.cloak)
# [18:03] <glazou> some good news to note : https://twitter.com/mollydotcom/status/608652644224081921
# [18:03] <glazou> Zakim, aabb is alex_antennahouse
# [18:03] <Zakim> sorry, glazou, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb'
# [18:03] <Zakim> + +1.281.305.aagg
# [18:04] <TabAtkins> Zakim, aagg is me
# [18:04] <Zakim> +TabAtkins; got it
# [18:04] * Florian glazou: Excellent news indeed.
# [18:04] * TabAtkins Sigh, Zakim doesn't remember me this week.
# [18:04] <dael> plinss: Let's get started.
# [18:04] <dael> plinss: Anything to add?
# [18:05] <dael> Florian: I think koji posted something
# [18:05] <dael> plinss: I saw that.
# [18:05] <dael> Topic: CSS UI 3 LC comment
# [18:05] <Zakim> +dbaron
# [18:05] <dael> Florian: We have one more week in unofficial LC. We've had two comments. SOme of them were non-controversial and I changed them.
# [18:05] <Florian> https://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css3-ui#current-issues
# [18:05] <Florian> s/two/some/
# [18:05] <dael> Florian: Her'es the ones that need discussion
# [18:06] <dael> Florian: If we start with the first one, #94 he is suggested that the default HTML stylesheet should have resize: both as a default. I think all browsers that have this do it, so I'm fine, but I don't care that strongly
# [18:06] <dael> Florian: what does the group think?
# [18:06] <dael> Florian: IE doesn't impl resize so they don't have it, but the browsers that do impl have it.
# [18:06] <dbaron> sounds fine to me
# [18:07] <dael> TabAtkins: Yeah, it's demonstrated to exist basically, so you should.
# [18:07] <dael> Florian: Anyone form MS here?
# [18:07] <dael> [silence]
# [18:07] <dael> Florian: I guess not.
# [18:07] <Zakim> +??P2
# [18:07] <tantek> dialing in
# [18:07] <tantek> zakim, ??p2 is me
# [18:07] <Zakim> +tantek; got it
# [18:07] <dael> Florian: This impl that for this to work means overflow is something other than visable, but I think they are. I ahven't seen a text-area:overflow. I believe it's overflow auto
# [18:07] <dael> TabAtkins: They're auto
# [18:07] <dael> Florian: I'm pretty sure there's scroll
# [18:08] <dael> Florian: I think they're visable. Overflow scroll in IE. THat's okay for this.
# [18:08] <dael> TabAtkins: It's auto in chrome.
# [18:08] <dael> Florian: I think it's auto everywhere except overflow y scroll in IE, but no one has it visable.
# [18:08] <dael> Florian: I'm hearing weak agreement.
# [18:08] <dael> tantek: That's not informative so we can change at any point.
# [18:09] <dael> Florian: No one obj so I suggest we put it in.
# [18:09] <dael> RESOLVED: Add the sugestion about resize: both
# [18:09] * Joins: murakami (~murakami@public.cloak)
# [18:09] <dael> Florian: next is #95
# [18:10] <dael> Florian: The word Ellipsed as a word isn't i nthe dictionary, but I have have found it in some dictionaries, but Ellipsized is only in Android docs. But he still thinks go with it because it doesn't mean what we say.
# [18:10] <dael> TabAtkins: Yeah, I think it means give it an ellipsis.
# [18:10] <dael> Florian: No dictionary has what we want.
# [18:10] <dael> tantek: I would reject these grammar/spelling ocmments unless it's a very strong case. That's our job as editors to get it right.
# [18:10] <Zakim> +??P4
# [18:10] <SimonSapin> Zakmi, ??P4 is me
# [18:10] <dael> Florian: I agree, but I wanted other opinions.
# [18:11] <SimonSapin> Zakim, ??P4 is me
# [18:11] <Zakim> +SimonSapin; got it
# [18:11] <dael> TabAtkins: I've dealt with this before, but I've jsut invented a word using standard english rules.
# [18:11] * glazou that’s the tabinventization of new words
# [18:11] <dael> tantek: I think the wording is fine. I would reject that kind of request.
# [18:11] <dael> Florian: That's my inclentation too
# [18:11] <dael> RESOLVED: Reject issue 95
# [18:11] <dael> Florian: Issue 96
# [18:12] <dael> Florian: He thinks the at-risk section isn't clear enough. He wanted the section about text-overflow explaining it's about ellipsis and having direct links to the rest of hte spec
# [18:12] <dael> tantek: The ellpsis part of text overflow isn't at risk.
# [18:12] <dael> Florian: I think that isn't the right place to remind people what it does.
# [18:12] <fantasai> I think this is editorial, doesn't need WG discussion
# [18:13] <dael> Florian: He also wanted pointers to the exact parts of the spec and we're pointing to the beginning of the section. I think it's good enough.
# [18:13] <dael> tantek: I agree with fantasai that this level of editorial feedback should just be fixed and not do telecon.
# [18:13] <dael> Florian: I just wanted to have agreement to reject, but if you think it's not we can move ahead.
# [18:13] * heycam is now known as heycam|away
# [18:13] <dael> TabAtkins: plinss do we need WG approval for editorial, or jsut non-editorial?
# [18:13] <dael> plinss: I'm not sure.
# [18:14] <dael> tantek: If it's okay witht he WG I'd like to focus on normative in telecon time.
# [18:14] <glazou> or Bert
# [18:14] <dael> plinss: I agree.
# [18:14] <glazou> Zakim, unmute me
# [18:14] <Zakim> glazou should no longer be muted
# [18:14] <dael> fantasai: The editorial stuff, if the commenttor objects to your resolution bring it to the WG, otherwise just fix. If it's termonology, maybe bring it to the WG because we like to have consistent termonology.
# [18:15] <dael> plinss: If the change crosses specs it needds to get out there.
# [18:15] <fantasai> terminology
# [18:15] <dael> Florian: I brought it up because I wanted to reject, but I'll do it without group time. The other issues are similar.
# [18:15] <dael> tantek: We'll be making other changes before CR anyway. I think we can take that as editorial perrogative.
# [18:16] <dael> Florian: Okay. timeless and I had back and forth, but he was disagreeing with what I was proposing.
# [18:16] <dael> plinss: let's move on.
# [18:16] <dael> Topic: user-select
# [18:16] <glazou> can you hear me?
# [18:16] * plinss no
# [18:16] <glazou> argl
# [18:16] <dael> tantek: On that note, since we are nearing the end of the LC, I'd like to try and get group concensus on pub CR the tuesday after next.
# [18:17] <dael> tantek: That's the 30th
# [18:17] * glazou wanted to say that the discrimination between editorial requiring or not requiring confcall time is « will Ralph ask about a resolution during the transition call »
# [18:17] * glazou will rejoin, cannot speak
# [18:17] <Zakim> -glazou
# [18:17] <dael> fantasai: You can't pub CR< it has to go through a process with telecons. Once you complie the DoC and can get a resolution form the WG that they agree with the resolution of comments, you'll turn it over to the chairs and they'll get it published later. You can get it in the pipeline, but it'll get pub a bit later. CR takes longer.
# [18:18] <dael> fantasai: You can get group concensus to pub CR, but not on a date.
# [18:18] <Zakim> +glazou
# [18:18] <dael> tantek: So the hopes of getting CR through pipeline, I'm asking for group consensus to pub CR
# [18:18] <dael> plinss: I'm okay, but we need a DoC
# [18:18] <dael> Florian: We have it in the wiki but it needs to be cleaned.
# [18:18] <dael> tantek: We don't have the formal red/green.
# [18:19] <dael> TabAtkins: bikeshed makes that easy for you with the issues list command.
# [18:19] <dael> Florian: There's one point we might want. One of the editorial was a11y. There was author level that said they mustn ot remove outlines on focus level. They want us to ahve a lot stronger of a threat i nthat. It's editorial, but people get more touchy about a11y.
# [18:20] * dauwhe CSS Threat Level 3
# [18:20] <dael> fantasai: You might also link to the guidelines and make it brightly colored.
# [18:20] <dael> tantek: On that note, we should make a pollicy that CSS specs do not make laws or something :)
# [18:20] * glazou now waits for the ‘defcon’ property on 01-apr-2016…
# [18:20] <dael> Florian: Anyway, move on?
# [18:20] <dael> tantek: We want consensus on CR.
# [18:20] <glazou> +1
# [18:20] <Zakim> -dbaron
# [18:20] <tantek> +1
# [18:20] <dael> plinss: Obj to taking UI to CR?
# [18:20] <Florian> +1
# [18:20] <dauwhe> +1
# [18:21] * Quits: stakagi (~stakagi@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [18:21] <dael> RESOLVED: Take CSS UI 3 to CR
# [18:21] <dbaron> why did Zakim just hang up on me?
# [18:21] <dael> tantek: Thanks everyone
# [18:21] <dael> topic: user-select
# [18:21] * glazou dbaron and it refused to unmute me before
# [18:21] <Zakim> +dbaron
# [18:21] <dael> Florian: I had an action to try and make some variations around user-select none so that if you select the parent you either would or would not include the none.
# [18:23] <dael> Florian: I've beed through the bugzilla of FF and webkit and I don't think we should do this. FF has it so that if you have a child the user-select: none isn't included and there is no bug asking for it to be the other way, but webkit has bugs asking for the FF way. There's no evidence people wan tthe webkit way so I don't think we should provide. If your browser can't do multi-part you don't, but if you can you do.
# [18:23] <glazou> fine by me
# [18:23] <Florian> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Jun/0002.html
# [18:23] <dael> plinss: Objections?
# [18:23] * fantasai defers to dbaron :)
# [18:23] * Quits: murakami (~murakami@public.cloak) ("Page closed")
# [18:23] <dael> resolved: don't offer varients of user-select: none that Florian was actioned to investgate
# [18:23] <Florian> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015May/0306.html
# [18:23] * glazou won’t object despite of being the requester, nice explanation from Florian
# [18:24] <dbaron> I think it sounds fine as long as that's not what -moz-user-select: -moz-none is... but I think I discussed that with Florian at some point.
# [18:24] <dael> Florian: next is something else I had an action on.
# [18:24] * Joins: stakagi (~stakagi@public.cloak)
# [18:25] <dael> Florian: It was to put a note saying user-select: none is useful in template in an editor setting because you have an overall editable area with a specific area that's not ditable or deliable like a disclamer. The way content: editable typically works is if you have a non-editable thing you can still delete it. But by having user-select: none you can't delete. But I really don't think I can say that in here.
# [18:26] <dael> Florian: It looks a bit out of scope. If you still want a note I have proposed wording, but I'm not conviced we should have it.
# [18:26] <Florian> Note: user-select:none on a non-editable descendant of an editable element means that in addition to not being editable, that descendant is also not deletable, neither directly nor by attempting to include it in a broader selection and then deleting that selection. This matter for example in template-based editing, where an editable template may contain sections which must be preserved.
# [18:26] <dael> Florian: : [reads his proposal from the e-mail]
# [18:26] <dael> Florian: It can be a note, but I'm wondering if it's out of scope.
# [18:27] <dael> TabAtkins: It sounds fine to me, but I don't have an opinion of out of scope. If we keep it it's fine.
# [18:27] <dael> glazou: I was re-reading it and I'd like to keep it.
# [18:27] <dael> glazou: If nobody obj of course. It's non-normative anyway.
# [18:27] <dael> Florian: What makes me nervious is it's useful if targeted at people writing the spec, but if they do something else it could set up the wrong expectation
# [18:28] <dael> glazou: But the people dealing with those in a template enviroment will read both specs. I prefer having the note in one place instead of nowhere.
# [18:28] <dael> Florian: Okay.
# [18:28] <dael> glazou: If there are obj I'm happy to withdraw, but I think it's fine to leave it if no one objects.
# [18:28] <BradK> No objection
# [18:28] <dael> plinss: Objections?
# [18:28] <dael> RESOLVED: Add Florian proposed text to user-select
# [18:28] <Florian> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Jun/0012.html
# [18:29] <dael> Florian: Next up is this
# [18:29] <Zakim> -antonp
# [18:30] <dael> Florian: user-select isn't actually inherited, it's pseudo-inherited and goes through the auto keyword. If the browser wants to support it ::first-line we have to make sure how it works. But I think using it on ::first-line or ::first-letter is wrong. If you're trying to use this correctly it's through a UI element.
# [18:30] <dael> Florian: I'd like toe xplicitly say it doesn't apply there
# [18:30] <dael> tantek: I think not-applying is the default.
# [18:30] <dael> Florian: They have a list that says UAs may apply other stuff.
# [18:30] <dael> tantek: You want it to be must not apply
# [18:30] <glazou> +1
# [18:30] <dael> Florian: Yes
# [18:30] <dael> tantek: Okay.
# [18:30] <dael> TabAtkins: Agreeed.
# [18:30] <dael> fantasai: Yes.
# [18:30] <dael> tantek: I would add before/after
# [18:31] <dael> fantasai: I don't think it's the same problem
# [18:31] <dael> tantek: I'd liek to force someone to havea use case for it.
# [18:31] <dael> tantek: No use case, no feature.
# [18:31] <glazou> no chocolate either
# [18:31] <dael> dbaron: I think it's extra work to make them not apply
# [18:31] <Zakim> +antonp
# [18:31] <dael> tantek: I think it's a compat problem to let them apply for action.
# [18:31] <antonp> Zakim, mute me
# [18:31] <Zakim> antonp should now be muted
# [18:31] <tantek> s/for action/by accident
# [18:31] <dael> fantasai: I don't think anyone is setting user-selecto on :before/:after
# [18:32] <glazou> Zakim, mute me
# [18:32] <glazou> WHAT
# [18:32] <Zakim> glazou should now be muted
# [18:32] <dael> dbaron: There's the problem that selection doesn't work with UI anyway.
# [18:32] * glazou aaaaah antonp and I did it at the same time and I was confused
# [18:32] <dael> plinss: I'm a bit uncomfortable to before/after because it's different use.
# [18:32] <dbaron> s/UI/::before and ::after/
# [18:32] <dael> Florian: I'm not sure it's so different. These things aren't actual content. They could be coming form selection because they're not part of the content, but I don't care that strongly.
# [18:33] <dael> plinss: I've heard people argue they can't select them.
# [18:33] <glazou> Zakim, unmute me
# [18:33] <Zakim> glazou should no longer be muted
# [18:33] <dael> TabAtkins: They're not selectable because impl limitations at the moment. If they're selectable in chrome they'd be selectable everywhere in chrome like normal text.
# [18:33] <dael> Florian: I think we have consensus on ::first-line/::first-letter but not the others.
# [18:34] <dael> RESOLVED: user-select must not apply to ::first-line/::first-letter
# [18:34] <dael> Florian: That's it for user-select
# [18:34] <dael> Topic: MQ
# [18:34] * heycam|away is now known as heycam
# [18:34] <dael> Florian: We recieved 2 e-mails from the same person asking for the same thing on custom media features.
# [18:35] <dael> Florian: He thinks it's ambig if it's a mydia type or media feature and adding parans makes it obvious. I fdon't really care, but I see where he's coming from. We should answer, though.
# [18:35] <dael> TabAtkins: I'm inclined to say no. Any other customer definitions in CSS syntax like alias style won't ahve wrapping syntax. I think it would be wierd to break just for custom-media
# [18:36] <dael> Florian: On the syntax you need to use has nothing to do with where you declare.
# [18:36] <dael> Florian: I'm okay with rejecting, I wanted to make sure we agreed to reject.
# [18:36] <dael> plinss: Other opinions?
# [18:36] <dael> RESOLVED: Reject custom-media definition change.
# [18:36] <dael> topic: sideways-left
# [18:37] * dael can't hear well
# [18:37] * Florian neither can I
# [18:37] <dael> koji: There are issue with the implementation functioning interop. The idea is to have it move to a property sideways-left
# [18:38] <dael> fantasai: I don't think this is a good idea because...we don't havea problem so long as we have sideways-right and not sideways or we change the meaning of sideways to mean sideways-right and have an auto value. THere are reasons to have sideways-left as an inline thing eventually so it doesn't make sense long term
# [18:38] <dael> koji: What are the reasons?
# [18:39] <dael> fantasai: There are uncommon use cases for which is should be inline
# [18:39] <dael> koji: Is the rtl cjk?
# [18:39] * heycam is now known as heycam|away
# [18:39] <dael> fantasai: That and...
# [18:39] <dael> Florian: Why can you do taht on the block level? The rtl inside cjk? doesn't that need to be inline?
# [18:40] <dael> koji: You can do inline block that does it clearly.
# [18:40] <dael> Florian: Inline block brings other things as well.
# [18:40] <dael> fantasai: I don't think this is solving a significant problem. If there's a major problem with having sideways only meaning sideways right and have sideways auto do what sideways is doing. I don't want to chang ethe writing mode in such a way...I don't like mixing it up.
# [18:41] <fantasai> s/sideways only/then we can have sideways only/
# [18:41] <dael> koji: It's really complecated and we don't want to intorduce conplexity. If you don't like adding the value we can add the new one [?]
# [18:41] <koji> s/one [?]/property/
# [18:41] <dael> Florian: I'm a bit confused. I thought we agreed at the F2F that we could keep it the way we had. What's new?
# [18:42] <dael> koji: How did we agree?
# [18:42] <dael> Florian: We brought up that sideways-right was correct by most people but sideways and sideways-left was not and we might want to rename or get rid of some of them. After the session we agreed it was fine the way it was.
# [18:42] <dael> koji: What we discussed is that the value of sidewyas depends on the value of sideways left.
# [18:43] <dael> Florian: Okay. I understand now.
# [18:43] <dael> fantasai: I don't think it's intractable, but might be more difficult, so maybe this gets defered to next level.
# [18:43] <dael> koji: I don't want ot impl this in the next level.
# [18:43] <dael> Florian: Is sideways-right an issue, or just left?
# [18:44] <dael> koji: Right is very clearly defined. Sideways-left requires additional resources for the baseline and it's really complicated.
# [18:44] <dael> Florian: I'm tempted to say it's at-risk and that's fine, but I'm not impl.
# [18:44] <glazou> Zakim, mute me
# [18:44] <Zakim> glazou should now be muted
# [18:44] <dael> plinss: I'm not hearing consensus
# [18:45] <dael> plinss: Are we rejecting? THink about it?
# [18:45] <dael> koji: rejecting meas we have to address other issues and complexities.
# [18:45] * Florian couldn't hear koji's last comment
# [18:45] <dael> fantasai: I don't htink we have any open issues. We jsut need to clairfy the spec
# [18:46] <dael> koji: He doesn't want to change, why isn't that an issue?
# [18:46] * Florian dbaron?
# [18:46] * dbaron can't hear koji well enough to comment
# [18:47] <dael> Florian: I think koji is brining up an issue that you raised that sideways-left is an issue if it can be applied inline. And fantasai and I were sayign it's more complicated, but also useful and it's at-risk anyway.
# [18:47] <dael> dbaron: It feels like there are use cases. It is harder and we're not doing it now. My issue is that there is a bunch of other wording in the spec that needs to be adgested.
# [18:48] <dael> fantasai: And that's something I need to fix, but we don't have to change the values and feature set, it's clarifying the spec
# [18:48] <dael> koji: How will they understand how it works?
# [18:48] <Florian> s/it/floats/ ?
# [18:48] <koji> s/it/float/
# [18:49] <dael> fantasai: It's not going to be too hard, but I need to sit down and spend like a month fixing the wording because there are a lot of areas that aren't precise enough.
# [18:49] * Florian OH: "It's not too hard, I just need to sit down and spend on month on the spec"
# [18:49] <dael> koji: Is there anyting other than rtl appearing in cjk overflow? If this is really complicated, I don't think that's worht the complexity
# [18:49] <koji> s/overflow/vertical flow/
# [18:49] * fantasai it's not too hard to fix this one thing, but there are a lot of things to fix; this is just one of them :)
# [18:50] <dael> Florian: Could we try and identify the its that need fixing and look at the list and see if it's too small a use case?
# [18:51] <dael> fantasai: The one thing here is the float rules are one or two paragraphs. There are other aspects of the spec that need cleaning, I don't think this is intractable, but it does need to be done. As far as, like, there are a couple of use cases where we could make it s block level thing and if you want those handled you have to use inline block
# [18:51] <dael> fantasai: but also it makes the model fo the user more complicated because for things that are similar there is more than one switch.
# [18:52] <Florian> q+
# [18:52] * Zakim sees Florian on the speaker queue
# [18:52] <dael> fantasai: Right now the effect is localized to inside the line box. If we make it block-level when we switch we can say you ignore text orentation or try and integrate it into writing mode, but that conflates the two switches that are currently only doing seperate things. I'd prefer not to do that because it makes it less clear cut.
# [18:52] <dael> fantasai: If we decide it's toocomplicated, I'd rather set up rule on how you ignore values on inline elements.
# [18:53] * Florian can barely hear koji
# [18:53] <dael> koji: What we're trying to do for right also requires writing modes. It sounds inconsistant so I prefer the other way.
# [18:53] <dael> fantasai: I don't htink authors think in terms of switching baselines. They think of how their glyph is orientated.
# [18:53] <dael> koji: It depends on the people
# [18:54] <Florian> q-
# [18:54] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
# [18:54] <fantasai> I don't think people associate upright typesetting with a sideways baseline orientation
# [18:54] <dael> Florian: If I understand, sideways-left at the inline level is a problem and -right is not. The natural way to use right within a vertal text is in the inline elemt
# [18:55] <dael> Florian: Instead of relying on mixed orientation. If i understand correctly I think this should stay in inline level switch. I think I'd rather not have sideways-left instead of not having this be an inline level switch
# [18:55] <dael> plinss: I'm not hearing consensus. I'm thinking you go off and do some spec work to sort things out. Anyone have anything else to say?
# [18:55] <dael> Topic: spec pubilication
# [18:56] <dael> plinss: We need chrisl and bert, so we have to defer.
# [18:56] <dael> plinss: Anything else?
# [18:56] <dael> koji: I'm not very confortable with why we're editing the spec
# [18:56] <dael> plinss: We don't have consensus on if we'll change so we should go offline
# [18:56] <dael> tantek: Should we capture the options in the spec?
# [18:57] <dael> fantasai: spec is in CR and the options have been there for a while. People are discovering it's complex as they try and impl.
# [18:57] <glazou> in CR, adding such prose will not be editorial and will trigger a re-eval of CR...
# [18:57] <dael> tantek: I'm a fan of capturing the issues.
# [18:57] <dael> tantek: If we're not making quick progress it's good to mark it in the spec.
# [18:57] <dael> fantasai: The feature is marked as at-risk.
# [18:58] <dael> tantek: I mean the issues we've come up with that we're not resolving.
# [18:58] <dael> tantek: Someone outside the group may have insights.
# [18:58] <dael> fantasai: One issue is that we need clarification. I will do that. Koji wants to move one thing to another property to make it easier to implement.
# [18:58] <dael> tantek: For that we should put a note on it that we don't have consesnsus and we welcome input.
# [18:58] <dael> plinss: I would agree, but we're in CR.
# [18:59] <dael> Florian: W can put it in the ED which exists even if we're in CR.
# [18:59] <Zakim> -hober
# [18:59] <dael> plinss: Is that sufficent or do we republish with that?
# [18:59] * dbaron doesn't see how Koji's proposal makes anything any simpler
# [18:59] <dael> tantek: WOuld it being put in the ED be a good step for you koji?
# [18:59] <dael> koji: Okay. I think there have been years without progress.
# [18:59] <dael> tantek: That's why I want it in the draft.
# [19:00] <dael> Florian: I think I disgree witht he proposal, I am okay with it being in the spec.
# [19:00] <dael> tantek: I jsut want to move the discussion forward.
# [19:00] <fantasai> dbaron, I think the argument is that it wouldn't have the varying BFC issue you raised?
# [19:00] <dael> plinss: Let's list the issue in the ED
# [19:00] <dael> tantek: I'm okay iterating on the CR with that.
# [19:01] <dael> plinss: It sounds like we have to publish the CR once there's edits on it.
# [19:01] <dael> fantasai: The CR will have to go through a few iterations.
# [19:01] <Zakim> -dbaron
# [19:01] <glazou> bye
# [19:01] <Zakim> -TabAtkins
# [19:01] <Zakim> -glazou
# [19:01] <dael> plinss: That's the top of the hour. Thanks everyone.
# [19:01] * Quits: glazou (~glazou@public.cloak) (glazou)
# [19:01] <Zakim> -dauwhe
# [19:01] <Zakim> -tantek
# [19:01] <Zakim> -BradK
# [19:01] <Zakim> -fantasai
# [19:01] <Zakim> -[Bloomberg]
# [19:01] <Zakim> -tgraham
# [19:01] <Zakim> -plinss
# [19:01] <Zakim> -bcampbell
# [19:01] <Zakim> -koji
# [19:01] <Zakim> -antenna
# [19:01] <Zakim> -SimonSapin
# [19:01] <Zakim> -dael
# [19:01] <Florian> s/I am okay with/I support/
# [19:01] * Quits: alex_antennahouse (~458c94ae@public.cloak) ("http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client")
# [19:01] * Parts: BradK (~bradk@public.cloak)
# [19:01] <Zakim> -antonp
# [19:02] * Quits: antenna (~antenna@public.cloak) ("Leaving")
# [19:02] <Florian> s/it being in the spec/it being recorded as an issue in the spec/
# [19:02] <Zakim> -??P7
# [19:02] <Zakim> -Florian
# [19:02] <Zakim> Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
# [19:02] <Zakim> Attendees were plinss, dael, +34.93.016.aaaa, antonp, dauwhe, +1.479.764.aabb, bcampbell, +1.631.398.aacc, fantasai, +33.1.39.21.aadd, glazou, antenna, +1.479.764.aaee, Florian,
# [19:02] <Zakim> ... hober, tgraham, BradK, koji, [Bloomberg], +1.281.305.aagg, TabAtkins, dbaron, tantek, SimonSapin
# [19:08] * Quits: dael (~dael@public.cloak) ("Page closed")
# [19:08] <Florian> Tantek, can you have a look at timeless's email and the remaining open issues for CSS3-UI?
# [19:08] <tantek> yes
# [19:09] <Florian> I've already made some adjustemnts based on his suggestions, but what's left is what I'd rather not do. If you agree to reject, then we can make an official statement
# [19:09] <tantek> I agree with capturing all these as separate issues btw - to be clear
# [19:09] <tantek> because those all feed into the disposition of comments
# [19:09] <tantek> as a general rule I'm going to back / agree with your rejections
# [19:09] <tantek> re: what's left - issue #s?
# [19:10] <Florian> 96 97 98
# [19:10] <Florian> 97 I've partly agreed and adjusted already, but he wants me to adjust more than I've already done, and I don't think that's right.
# [19:11] * Quits: plh (plehegar@public.cloak) ("Leaving")
# [19:11] * Joins: plh (plehegar@public.cloak)
# [19:11] <Florian> I am ok with rephrasing to make things clearer, I am not ok with statements like "If you don't conform, such and such party may refuse to do business with you, and such and such user group may hate you"
# [19:12] <tantek> yeah I totally agree with you
# [19:12] <tantek> that kind of assertion is out of scope for a w3c spec
# [19:12] <Florian> yep
# [19:12] <tantek> which is a good reason to raise it to the WG as a general policy for CSS specs
# [19:12] <tantek> and frankly, I'm happy to accept that as an item to raise to the AB as a general policy for W3C specs
# [19:13] <tantek> despite TabAtkins's not-so-hidden agenda :P
# [19:14] <Florian> An AB resolution could be nice, as a thing to point to
# [19:14] <Florian> but then you'd need to be very careful about how it's phrased
# [19:15] <tantek> well the way that would typically work is for a WG to adopt a policy first
# [19:15] <tantek> by consensus in the WG
# [19:15] <tantek> and the AB could look at it and say, hey this is a good idea that we should generalize
# [19:15] <Florian> "You MUST do X. If you don't, you should do Y instead." is a useful thing to state in a spec. "You MUST do X, or else!!!" is not.
# [19:15] <tantek> lol
# [19:17] <Florian> All right, dinner time. Then I'll roll in todays resolutions.
# [19:20] <SimonSapin> Florian: an extension to MUST (BUT WE KNOW YOU WON'T) ?
# [19:22] <Florian> SimonSapin: must (and He will know if you don't, and you shall repent).
# [19:22] * Joins: adenilson (~anonymous@public.cloak)
# [19:22] <tantek> SimonSapin: is there an April fools RFC for that?
# [19:22] * Florian is now known as Florian_away
# [19:23] <tantek> like a variant of 2119?
# [19:23] * Quits: bcampbell (~chatzilla@public.cloak) ("ChatZilla 0.9.91.1 [Firefox 31.7.0/20150504194141]")
# [19:25] * tantek goes back to looking at https://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css3-ui
# [19:26] <TabAtkins> tantek: 6919
# [19:28] <tantek> Florian_away: in short: 96, we can make some editorial clarifications. 97, we can editorially clarify importance, threat request rejected as out of scope for a W3C spec. 98, agreed, reject. Editing the wiki accordingly.
# [19:30] <tantek> updated
# [19:30] <tantek> wiki updated rather
# [19:32] * Quits: stakagi (~stakagi@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [20:12] * Joins: dauwhe_ (~dauwhe@public.cloak)
# [20:12] * Quits: dauwhe (~dauwhe@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
# [20:27] * Quits: antonp (~Thunderbird@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [20:34] * Joins: antonp (~Thunderbird@public.cloak)
# [20:36] * Quits: dbaron (~dbaron@public.cloak) ("8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.")
# [20:49] * Joins: glazou (~glazou@public.cloak)
# [20:49] * Quits: glazou (~glazou@public.cloak) (glazou)
# [20:57] * Zakim excuses himself; his presence no longer seems to be needed
# [20:57] * Parts: Zakim (zakim@public.cloak)
# [21:02] * Quits: antonp (~Thunderbird@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
# [21:03] * Quits: andrey-bloomberg (~andrey-bloomberg@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [21:04] * Joins: antonp (~Thunderbird@public.cloak)
# [21:10] * Joins: antonp1 (~Thunderbird@public.cloak)
# [21:13] <Florian_away> tantek, you're still there?
# [21:13] * Florian_away is now known as Florian
# [21:14] <Florian> For 97, I've already changed the style to make it stand out (class=advisement)
# [21:14] <Florian> "Keyboard users, which includes people with disabilities who may not be able to interact with the page in any other fashion, depend on the outline being visible on elements in the :focus state, thus authors must not make the outline invisible on such elements without making sure an alternative highlighting mechanism is provided."
# [21:14] <Florian> I suggest also rephrasing to the above
# [21:15] * Quits: antonp (~Thunderbird@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [21:19] * Quits: dauwhe_ (~dauwhe@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
# [21:19] * Joins: dauwhe (~dauwhe@public.cloak)
# [21:19] <tantek> Florian: WFM
# [21:20] <tantek> oh, slight native speaker fix
# [21:20] <Florian> as for 96, I am not against clarifying, but I don't quite see how.
# [21:20] <Florian> please
# [21:20] <tantek> Keyboard users, in particular people with ...
# [21:21] <tantek> slight semantic, "which" tends to apply to things/objects, and it's slightly more polite to not use it for references to people
# [21:23] <Florian> Thanks, that does sound better.
# [21:24] <Florian> I'll use that
# [21:24] <Florian> for 96, do you get what improvement we can make?
# [21:25] * Quits: antonp1 (~Thunderbird@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
# [21:25] * Joins: antonp (~Thunderbird@public.cloak)
# [21:38] <tantek> for 96, I can attempt some rewordings, or I'll give up and say so :)
# [21:39] <Florian> I've made the edits for 94 and 97
# [21:40] <tantek> great
# [21:41] <Florian> should I let timeless know which suggestions we accepted and which we rejected already, or do you want to fix up 96 first
# [21:43] <Florian> for wiki / DoC purposes, should I could 97 as accepted or rejected, since we accepted part of the comment (make it clearer and make it stand out), but not some other part (make threats)?
# [21:44] <Florian> I'm thinking of counting it as rejected, since that's what important to track. Accepted editorial changes are not that imortant to keep track individually when we already have about 100 issues on record.
# [21:47] <tantek> in the past I've noted such in DoCs as partially accepted / rejected and used yellow
# [21:47] <tantek> maybe even in the previous CSS3 UI CR DoC!
# [21:47] <Florian> :)
# [21:48] <Florian> the status lines indicates partially accepted / rejected, and I've put it in the "Rejected" section of the wiki just to make sure we don't make it green by accident.
# [21:48] <tantek> oh hey I had a whole rainbow code
# [21:48] <tantek> http://www.w3.org/Style/css3-updates/css3-ui-comments :)
# [21:49] <tantek> now I remember what I did to solve that problem
# [21:50] <tantek> anything that I partially accepted / rejected, I split into smaller subcomments that I marked explicitly wholly accepted or rejected
# [21:51] <Florian> sounds reasonable. For now we have all the info in the wiki. We can massage it into the right shape later
# [21:52] <Florian> I'll send a mail to timeless about the ones we've rejected, to ask if he objects or can live we that.
# [21:52] <Florian> Do we have a template for asking this by the way? I think I've seen one at some point.
# [21:59] * Joins: stakagi (~stakagi@public.cloak)
# [22:00] <tantek> asking what?
# [22:01] * Joins: dbaron (~dbaron@public.cloak)
# [22:01] * Quits: adenilson (~anonymous@public.cloak) (adenilson)
# [22:11] <Florian> tantek: a template for "Please tell us if you can live with that, or if you formally object"
# [22:12] * Quits: antonp (~Thunderbird@public.cloak) (antonp)
# [22:12] <tantek> I've avoided a template for such to instead force myself to personalize each message and make it seem less likea "form letter" response/rejection
# [22:13] <tantek> Totally anecdotal: I have found that personalized response tend to get more sympathetic follow-up than form-like responses
# [22:13] <tantek> also, practicing writing such deliberate politeness is probably a good thing for all of us editors
# [22:13] <tantek> especially when we reject things
# [22:14] <tantek> even if it's slower
# [22:17] <liam> inviting formal objection escalation is also best not done too soon
# [22:18] <tantek> yeah I wouldn't even ask them "if you formally object" - no need to suggest that option
# [22:18] <tantek> it sounds like a "or else you could escalate" which sounds a bit too confrontational/uncooperative
# [22:18] <liam> better is, "If this is acceptable there's no need to do anything, otherwise please reply to this message with more details - thank you"
# [22:18] <tantek> thanks liam - that's good
# [22:19] <liam> yw :)
# [22:20] <liam> Florian, see above suggestion.
# [22:21] <tantek> Florian, also ok to reply with work-in-progress and to say still working on remaining questions/issues
# [22:21] <Florian> liam, tantek: Is it good? I believe we actually need an answer saying "I'm ok with this" when we reject a comment, and I am not sure we can assume that silence means agreement.
# [22:21] <Florian> tantek: Yes, for WIP, I plan to state that
# [22:21] <tantek> Florian: I think that's why I came up with all the different colors in the previous DoC
# [22:21] <Florian> plinss: can you comment on the above discussion?
# [22:22] <tantek> http://www.w3.org/Style/css3-updates/css3-ui-comments
# [22:22] <tantek> in particular I think it's ok to document silence as absence of further objection
# [22:22] <plinss> Florian: in TAG telcon, will look in a few...
# [22:22] <tantek> but explicitly note that it was silence
# [22:22] <tantek> hence *yellow*
# [22:22] <tantek> instead of green
# [22:22] <tantek> which should be ok
# [22:22] <Florian> tantek: I think "we asked if it was ok, and got no answer" is acceptable, but we actually need to ask for an answer
# [22:23] <liam> Florian, you only have to make clear they can say no
# [22:23] <liam> you don't need a formal "yes"
# [22:23] <tantek> Florian, we don't actually have to ask
# [22:23] <tantek> though it is nice to do so
# [22:23] <tantek> e.g. if you look through the previous DoC, many times I cited others' emails as responses to issues, which did not ask for any follow-up
# [22:24] <liam> it also heads off a possible 'did the person know they could respond" question, ahtough that wouldn't be an issue with timeless of course
# [22:24] <tantek> heh yeah - hence why personalized responses are important
# [22:24] <tantek> right, with timeless I would focus on polite brevity
# [22:24] <liam> and please someone offer him a job :-)
# [22:25] <tantek> with others I might be more up front about making sure they knew they could follow-up
# [22:25] <Florian> I am not in the position to offer anyone a job
# [22:25] <tantek> depends greatly on how shy they might be/sound
# [22:25] <liam> Florian, no, that wasn't directed at anyone in particular, but I think he was laid off from Nokia, not sure exactly
# [22:28] <Florian> Ok, I'm going to go with this as the intro, follow by a response on each issue:
# [22:28] <Florian> Hi timeless,
# [22:28] <Florian> This is an update on the status of the issues you raised
# [22:28] <Florian> which had not yet been addressed. Some of your suggestions
# [22:28] <Florian> have been rejected by the working group. Please reply to
# [22:28] <Florian> this message with more details if this is not acceptable.
# [22:29] <Florian> s/follow/followed/
# [22:30] <Florian> Liam, tantek: ^ sounds ok?
# [22:31] <tantek> yes - and cite the minutes for "rejected by the working group"[n]
# [22:32] <Florian> Minutes are not out yet. Point to IRC / Wiki, or wait for the mintues.
# [22:32] <Florian> Minutes are not out yet. Point to IRC / Wiki, or wait for the mintues.?
# [22:33] <Florian> s/.?/?/
# [22:34] <liam> i'd tone it down slightly for most other people
# [22:34] <liam> since there's a middle ground between totally unacceptable and perfectly OK
# [22:35] <liam> wait for the minutes if possible
# [22:35] <tantek> agreed
# [22:35] <tantek> on both counts
# [22:35] <tantek> the less confrontational you can make it sound, the better
# [22:36] <liam> "Thank you for your comments. We accepted some of your suggestions and not others - please see the minutes and respond on the list if you have more questions."
# [22:36] <liam> (with link to minutes of course)
# [22:37] <liam> i know i know, bikeshed :-)
# [22:38] * Joins: myles (~Adium@public.cloak)
# [22:42] <Florian> Thanks. Enough bikesheding now. I'll send something close to that once the minutes are out.
# [22:43] * Joins: adenilson (~anonymous@public.cloak)
# [22:45] <SimonSapin> can bikeshed generate email responses to comments? :]
# [22:48] * Quits: Ms2ger (~Ms2ger@public.cloak) ("nn")
# [22:49] * Joins: dauwhe_ (~dauwhe@public.cloak)
# [22:49] * Quits: dauwhe (~dauwhe@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
# [22:54] <plinss> Florian: we often have transition calls without responses to rejections, we do presume no response is consent but it’s better if we get an OK back
# [22:56] * Quits: dbaron (~dbaron@public.cloak) ("8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.")
# [22:56] <Florian> plinss: Thanks. I'll mention in the mail that we would appreciate an explicit OK if acceptable to him.
# [22:57] <Florian> (while keeping the message in line with what Liam suggested)
# [22:57] * Joins: dbaron (~dbaron@public.cloak)
# [22:58] * Quits: plh (plehegar@public.cloak) ("Leaving")
# [23:11] <liam> Florian, sounds fine
# [23:11] <liam> timeless is very cooperative & helpful.
# [23:24] * Quits: Florian (~Florian@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
# [23:53] * Joins: Florian (~Florian@public.cloak)
# [23:54] <TabAtkins> SimonSapin: I refuse to cross the "become an email server" boundary.
# [23:54] <SimonSapin> haha
# [23:54] <TabAtkins> fantasai: We're thinking of unprefixing our Sizing keywords. Thoughts?
# [23:55] <SimonSapin> TabAtkins: http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/Z/Zawinskis-Law.html
# [23:55] <TabAtkins> Yeah, that's what I was referencing.
# [23:56] <liam> ahh Jamie
# [23:56] <liam> and was it gnu "echo' that had a built-in mail reader?
# Session Close: Thu Jun 11 00:00:00 2015

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