trackbot, start meeting

present+

present_

present+

present+

present+

present+

ScribeNick: dael

present+

present+

present+

present+

present+

present+

Present+ antonp

astearns: Looks like almost enough people. We'll wait another minute or so

ACTION fantasai Send out publication announcements...

astearns: We should get started

Happy world emoji day

astearns: Anything to add or change about the agenda?

astearns: Do we have the people to discuss w3c/csswg-drafts #4059#issuecomment-510148922

astearns: Particularly is myles on?

astearns: Lets skip until we get myles

Topic: text-decoration-width claims to be a sub-property of text-decoration, but text-decoration disagrees.

github: w3c/csswg-drafts #3993

astearns: emilio added this and fantasai commented.

astearns: Anything we need to do?

fantasai: Not unless someone disagrees with making it a sub property

 🌎 📆

astearns: I have not read through the text. Is there a spec change?

astearns: I'm fine with fantasai's comment, updating the spec would be nice

present+

Present+

fantasai: Hang up is text-decor L3 text isn't folded into L4. I need to cross check before I copy over and merge in. L4 is basically a diff spec atm

present+

astearns: So we'll close this as soon as you cross check and poss. update spec

fantasai: Yeah

astearns: Any disagreement with that course of action?

??: nope

astearns: Let's leave it at that.

Topic: pre-wrap and tabs at the end of the line

github: w3c/csswg-drafts #3869#issuecomment-509811620

astearns: florian added example

florian: 2 parts to the discussion. one is hardly discussed and non-controversial. Other was and needed example

florian: The hardly discussed is just like spaces tabs do not hang and you can break between. Mentioned in issue and no one pushed back.

florian: I'd like to resolve on that before going to whitespace prewrap

astearns: Treat tabs the same as issues for this?

present+

for break-spaces, right?

florian: They can't hang and you can wrap between two consecutive tabs

astearns: Tabs do not hang and you can break between for whitespace: break spaces

astearns: Objections?

s/break spaces/break-spaces/

RESOLVED: Tabs do not hang and you can break between for whitespace: break-spaces

s/whitespace/white-space/

florian: Now what happens with tabs at end of line with whitespace-prewrap

florian: Example in document with line empty with tabs at end. What happens if line is too short?

florian: First is what line is long enough, second is when tab hangs.

florian: If you disallow hanging and disallow breaking between tabs you get second rendoring. 3rd is disallow hanging but allow breaking between tabs. No one does 3rd, browsers are split between first 2.

florian: I don't have a strong preference. Weak for option 3 which no one does. But we should try and align on something. Would want to hear if anyone has preference.

Present+ Nigel

florian: Questions on example? Thoughts on why one is preferable?

astearns: I don't have much of a preference. Not sure the 3rd is preferable either

astearns: I don't know why you have weak preference for that

dbaron: Drawing in example assumes tab stop lines up with end of container.

florian: I could be a different length, that's correct. I have a line length of 16 in this example. If you did 17 for example line breaking position wouldn't change in any example but you'd have empty space at end of it.

fantasai: Only difference visually is container is slight wider, but otherwise render same

dbaron: Complexity with not line up is you would also have to decide if can break in middle of tab

present+

florian: I assumed you could not, but fair enough. it renders as a shift not a character.

dbaron: You'd have to decide if you have tab stop at beginning/end of line. If you don't you can break in middle of tab. If you don't have tab stop and your next position is early in next line but not start; I guess it doesn't matter if tab is on first line or part on each line

fantasai: Tab stop is at beginning of line, but not end of line unless lines up with a multiple of 8 spaces from start of the line

florian: If we don't have a use case driven preference we can ask the web author folks to fish for one. We have split between browsers now. We can ask who is easier to change.

florian: Going by use case would be better. Haven't ID'ed any. Should we draw in rachelandrew or jensimmons ?

dbaron: THis feel obsure to me.

florian: it does

astearns: Could resolve on behavior 1 since we have 2 engines doing it

florian: Yeah...not particular reason to think behavior 1 is terrible so I'm okay with that. It is similar to what happens to spaces in white-space:pre-wrap. That implies FF has to change.

dbaron: I think consistancy with spaces is reasonable thing. I don't have strong opinions.

florian: Suspect any impl difficulty?

dbaron: Hard to say

astearns: Main difficulty is reason to make the change. I could just be a bug in FF forever

is there any way to apply the principle of least surprise here?

all other things being equal?

myles_: Engines have special case for tabs. IT'll be a slightly smaller or larger special case then it would have been. Picking an option is more important then which

florian: And as to the point about no rush to fix I think this will be low in priority, but there will eventually be a lump of bugs to fix and this will be in.

astearns: tantek asked in IRC: [reads]. One of the problems is no one has strong opinion on actual expectation

florian: Being consistent with spaces goes slightly to least surprise. If you know one you know the other

astearns: Sounds like we are driving toward a preference for the first option since consistent with spaces

florian: Right, the tabs hang

astearns: In which?

astearns: Prop: for white-space:pre-wrap tabs hang like spaces do

astearns: Objections?

that seems reasonable and less noisy (random tabs/ws at end of line won't change layout)

RESOLVED: For white-space:pre-wrap tabs hang like spaces do

Topic: Limits on text-underline-offset to preserve semantic meaning

github: w3c/csswg-drafts #4059#issuecomment-510148922

astearns: Discussed this, what, last week? Been more discussion in GH. jensimmons gave 3 options

astearns: 1. Don't do any clamping. 2. Wide clamp 3. Narrow clamp

astearns: Any additional information to add?

astearns: From my pov we shouldn't have a clamp at all. Whatever clamp we choose might be difficult to come at an interop consensus as to what it should be. I am not concerned with semantic implications of moving an underline.

astearns: Agree we should have these offsets for strikethrough and overline as well

+1 to astearns

1

astearns: I think that's an arguement to add more offset properties and not clamping any

??: I agree

+1, rather

s/??/bradk

I'm against the narrow clamping definition.

florian: One nuance. If there are impl difficulties having an allowance for clamping for the reason of not painint many pages away I would accept that. Not go any further then that.

smfr: If you don't clamp do you allow underline to be clipped out? So UA must paint howeevr far or is it okay to not paint if it's "too far away". If you don't clamp need to say if can do clipping

Ink overflow only.

florian: Do we expect impl to be more difficult to put underline 3000 px away?

smfr: More difficult for text decor

myles_: Performance hit where any part of page changes have to redraw entire paragragh

AmeliaBR: True for things like box shadows

myles_: Unfortunate there too

AmeliaBR: Shouldn't have special rules for this. SHould have general rule for at point you can reasonably clip

myles_: Have webcompat for others. THis is new so can change

jensimmons: Sounds to me this is an argument for a wide clamp. TO smfr point I meant any obstruction of author ability to put underline where they thought. A clip or a clamp is a level of sophestication we haven't reached.

florian: If you're going to limit it should be clamp rather then clipping.

florian: I would go for wide clamp or no clamp

Rossen_: Sounds like discussing merit of feature again. There was good consensus last time we wanted clamping

florian: no

I don't think there was emerging consensus

Rossen_: And also of the opinion that if we don't have clampping of offset then any other impl that do underline-offset will have fairly different semantic meanings as to where they'll draw underline or one that looks like a strikethrough.

Rossen_: For a new feature we have control over we have a chance to make it right.

Rossen_: If there are use cases to pay around with a background in the middle of the line box, use the striketrhough. If that's not good enough use a background. CHanging underline and allowing it to escape to be a strikethrough is bad from many PoV. Esp. for impl that don't have it. Having poor fallback is not a good idea

q+

florian: I disagree it's poor. If you design an underline in such a way that it's thick and shifted up it's reasonable for the fallabck to be a normal underline. Argues for no local clamping. Wide is different.

Strike though cannot be a background because it is in front of the text

Why are *under*lines not drawn *under* the text (layerwise), so they can't actually strike-through? (they could strike-under?)

jensimmons: What I'm hearing Rossen_ is an argument for narrow clamp. I don't htink we've had consensus. After call esp hearing more and more no clamp. We can keep trying to articulate reasons, btu I haven't heard lack of consensus of the reasons for each. I've hear arguments as to why each is a good idea. I don't think there is consensus

tantek, they are drawn under the text

tantek: they are

tantek, and strike-throughs are drawn over

s/tantek:/tantek,/

jensimmons: Personally I prefer no clamp. Okay with wide clamp if it's for performance. narrow is much harder and we don't have to prevent authors from doing dumb things. We should pick which of the 3 and discuss details

myles_: Maybe comprimise is wide clamp. b/c wide spec can just recommend a general idea of where to put it.

+1 for what Myels jsut said

*Myles just

s/Myels/Myles/

astearns: Another way of casting narrow vs wide is narrow is for semantic argument to keep underline and underline and not mistaken for anything else. Wide is for perfromance reasons but not semantic. Is that correct?

fantasai: yes

florian: That's how I understan

thanks fantasai, then I'm not as worried about underline abuse, cosmetically, semantically or otherwise

<u> is semantic. *-decoration is not

+1 to tantek and to bradk

Specific proposal for wide clamp: within the larger of 2 x max(line-box-height, font-height)

Rossen_: I think first is characterized well. Second is a little unfair. Impl will become more complex for unknown reasons. Performance will be potentially impacted. Having to go in and validate and keep validation out of current bounds for overflowing underlines is not great. I would say both impl and performance

astearns: To move discussion, can we resolve not to add a clamp to this property for mearly semantic reasons. Would anyone like to argue for narrow clamp to satisfy semantic concerns?

+1 to bradk

Implementations already need to keep track of underlines for overflow.

I wonder if there are some math related display hacks we could do with underlines far from their text

Rossen_: I would be willing to continue to argue this. I would want to hear from other groups on this issue, including a11y

astearns: I wonder if makes sens eto break issue into 2 concerns. There are separate arguments for each.

astearns: Is there anyone besides Rossen_ who is up to argue for semantic concerns?

this is still WD right? why not put the issue in the text as a question linking to the issue and leave the presence/absence of clamping open til we have more implementations?

tantek: we are getting a second implementation now, so we can't punt

tantek, we have implementations

myles_: Our original purpose was this. THere's a diff between existing prop and this new property. You could never draw a text shadow and not move it. But you can draw an underline and not move it. Semantic is a11y but also if you view new website in old browser it will look totally different. I don't think that's a concern for existing css properties

I feel like we can punt a bit longer until Chrome intents to implement, or have we seen that already?

fantasai: If you as an author want fallback for this underline to be no underline you can do that. If you want fallback to look regular you can do that. Both are possible

myles_: Authors have to think about that and add code

florian: To disappear yes

bradk: Have to think about that for any new

jensimmons: Fallback is natural and makes sense. If you're doing fancy in a new browser your fallback is a normal browser. I don't see it as complex, it seems natural from author PoV

+1 jensimmons

s/browser/underline/ ?

astearns: On wide clamp side I'm a bit concerns about doing it right for new prop means we have a set that behave one way and a set behaving a different way.

astearns: That's a difficult story to tell

astearns: As we introduce more properties you have to keep in mind which do you clip and which do not

florian: A valid use case was brought up for not wide clamp. Since they're animatibe you can shift overline from way for to right position with the offset. I would expect people to try and do that. Yes perf implications and complexity but if you go for it you go for it. There's no good taste design law that says we should ban this

myles_: Seen websites that do that effect. All those have underline in a reasonable position through any point in animation. I think all 3 options would work on those sites. Sites I've seen move underline rfom 5 px below natural position to its natural position

florian: Not from outside screen?

myles_: Never seen a website that did that

jensimmons: I agree with myles. Don't have to worry about underline flying in from off page. Small move from hover is use case

jensimmons: I wonder if one thing to agree one is question of if we were to have a clamp are there people that want to clip and have it disappear or can we agree with will never clip. We'll clamp and it won't move anymore. You hit a limit and it no longer moves

-1 to any clipping at all

AmeliaBR: I think it's important that if we allow clipping we have to be consistent where it happens so you don't have accidently disappearing. Clamping is easier to leave to UA discretion b/c will never have content disappear

myles_: Underline 700px away is effectively lost

I disagree with what AmeliaBR just said. But she also changed the subject

AmeliaBR: Are we clipping at 700px or at 2em. We've been throwing a lot of things around.

myles_: 700px is the no clamp situation

astearns: jensimmons question is if we do agree on a limit do we agree underline will be drawn at that limit if author spec something outside limit.

astearns: I'm for resolving on always drawing underline

myles_: fine with that

I think if we resolve on always drawing the underline, whatever clamping limit we choose should be relatively close to the line

florian: Along lines AmeliaBR said we can make argument it's less important with strong interop. But I think it's better to always draw

bradk: can all agree on that

+1 to always drawing

astearns: And fantasai point that if we do decide to always draw limit will need to be fairly close. If we say always draw helps to define limit

because if the limit is ~ 700px, then the author might want to draw the underline off-screen but it'll only be off-screen on some UAs/some screen sizs

astearns: Obj to always draw the underline?

RESOLVED: always draw the underline even if it's spec to be outside a limit we choose

astearns: Remaining issue is do we have a limit. If we do what is it

astearns: I heard from some people they wanted to talk to other groups like a11y

fantasai: If clamping and not clipping we need to clamp relatively close. WIthin a couple of lines. If we allow anywhere on screen and UA limit is 1000px author will try for 9000px and on some monitors it's visible which is not intended.

fantasai: If we're clamping rather then clipping underline needs to show up in most cases

florian: You're aruging no clamp or mid-range clamp but not wide

jensimmons: I think she's arguing narrow or wide but not no clamp

The problem fantasai just described already exists for authors.

fantasai: I'm against narrow; I agre with jensimmons and bradk arguments

Authors putting things off-screen, thinking they are gone, when in fact they are on-screen for some people

bradk: If you're going to clamp position need to clamp thickness too. If top of underline is 3em away it can be 6em width

fantasai: It'll be visible enough for author to notice it's there. Interensting point if we want to allow underlines that are 500x width of line.

bradk: I'm for not restraining creative uses. It's a decoration. If there's a great reason to cover height of page, fine. If it's performance hit it's author's responsibility to deal

+1 bradk

agree with bradk

astearns: I'm not hearing consensus. Some people interested in a limit for semantic, some people want a limit for impl difficulty or perf, and others not up for a limit at all.

fantasai: Straw poll?

priorities: authoer > implementation > semantic purity

astearns: I suppose we can.

myles_: Fourth is allow impl to decide

so I think we should lean towards bradk & jensimmons opinions here

fantasai: I think we need some interop. If one does semantic and the other does none it'll be bad for everybody

Does it help to agree that it is an ink effect only, which doesn’t break to other pages and columns?

agreed with jen

jensimmons: If we land on narrow needs to be very specific. If we land on wide it can be more like the allowed zone needs to be something specific but beyond browsers can do what they want. Then you're out of author impact zone and into engineering impact zone.

bradk, we're already agreed on that, but good to remind

jensimmons: If it's about effecting authors need tight interop

Rossen_: Currently all browser clamp at semantic place. If you say differences are bad for everyone not having clamping close to semantic puts in that effect for everyone

AmeliaBR: Do we have more than one impl?

jensimmons: FF nightly and it has no clamp

Rossen_: All browsers that don't support offset draw underline at semantic height

astearns: Not relevent b/c discussing new property

Rossen_: Is based on amount of difference we impose on users without that property

straw poll??

florian: THat's progress of enhancing. They do a sensible fallback

Rossen_: that's what I'm arguing about

s/progress of enhancing/called progressive enhancement/

astearns: I agree with myles_ and jensimmons there is a 4th optino of we have a wide clamp and we spec you must allow this much and where you decide liit is impl dependent

**9:18

jensimmons: Can I suggest we don't do details in straw poll. It's no clamp, wide clamp, narrow clamp. We realize those might need to be refined and need allowance. THis is about what is important to people

A

astearns: IRC straw poll. a. No clamp. b. Narrow Clamp. c. Wide clamp

A

+1 to A, -1 to B, 0 to C

A or C — no clamp or wide clamp

astearns: Please put in IRC, can vote for >1

B, C

A

B C

C, A

B C

A

A or C

+1 to A, 0 to B, -1 to C

astearns: About half of people on call have voted

A

A

C would be OK if it is 1 meeeelion ems

A

A

florian: Surprised by nigel vote

B, C

present+

nigel: It seem slike underline is the thing that belongs near text. having a wide clamp doesn't seem helpful. If you're saying it can be 5 lines away from text but not 6 it seems arbitrary. Either the underline is associated to text and we enforce or we don't clamp it.

B, C

florian: Narrow version of clamping tries to prevent overlapping underline with text so you can't mistake for a striketrhough

"Narrow clamp" forces the underline below the descenders and above the next line of text

nigel: May have misunderstood

"Wide clamp" has varying interpretations, but is not trying to make such a restriction.

florian: So you're for wide but not too wide?

nigel: Authors need to be able to overlapunderline with text. If it's a different color they can put text on top of it.

florian: So that means you disagree with what has been called narrow clamp.

nigel: Okay, I guess I should refine my vote.

Revised vote: +1 to A, -1 to B, 0 to C

astearns: Looks like no clamp wins the straw poll, but wouldn't resolve on

yes

can live with C

fantasai: Question for people that voted a. Can you live with c?

florian: can

bradk: Can if it's sufficiently far

AmeliaBR: For every css prop we allow impl to have reasonable limits

bradk: 1mil em away doesn't matter

yes the dr. evil option!

yes can live with C

Q - Limit is super-far, based on how big can you draw a box and things like that

fantasai: 3 ranges of clamping we could have. q: limit is super far based on how big can you draw a box.

R - Medium-range, like 6-10 lines - enough for author to notice that there's clamping, but not particularly restrictive

fantasai: r- medium range, like fixed to10 lines. lets author notice clampping, but not particularly restricted

Rossen_: Define in terms of line box?

Rossen_: I think that's more concrete

fantasai: That's what I'm talking about.

S - Short-range, 1-2 line boxes, tries to keep the line with the next, not overlapping the adjacent lines

fantasai: s- short range keeps line wiht text

Rossen_: q means no limits.

fantasai: I would equate q with basically no clampping. We've got medium and short range. Medium you can put it around but you can notice there's clamping. On screen most devices. Short is within range that gives author freedom within line box and slightly outside, but stay within range and avoid overlapping next text

fantasai: r and s are variations of [missed] clamp

fantasai: For people that voted a and can't live with r or s it means you can't live with c

jensimmons: Can you use medium and far words?

-1 to R, -10 to S

voted for A, can live with all versions of C (but prefer further)

fantasai: Far is basically same as no clamp b/c based on memory usage. Equate with a. Wide clamping there's 2 approaches. One is a lot of room but clamp it close enough you can see there's a clamp. Or we pull tighter and say our goal is within range of line box and not too far down

astearns: For people that voted b and c is there anyone that could not live with a?

myles_: Totally confused with all the letters

a. No clamp. b. Narrow Clamp. c. Wide clamp

AmeliaBR: Everyone that said narrow also said wide. Maybe enough consensus with wide and then we get to what is wide clamp really mean.

s/ AmeliaBR / jensimmons

A good compromise is when everyone is a little unhappy

jensimmons: I was thinking with a few line boxes away, I couldn't fine use cases to go any more then the line above it. I'm fine with it being +/- 1 line box. Doesn't get into not allowed above x height. It's much more forgiving, but it's like you don't want 2 line boxes away.

florian: I think bradk dislikes this.

astearns: I think it does improve discoverability of limit if we stop moving within a linebox of original position

myles_: Have we thought about moving other direction? We did clamp to not do striketrhough. Clamping moving toward text?

fantasai: This is all directions. This is in scope

I'd like to allow authors to animate text-decorations into view from outside the viewing area

florian: That's option b

that's my no-clamp use-case

astearns: We are at time. We'll come back to this again

topic: end

florian: I'd like to encourage anyone show cares to look at issue #3440. THat was next on agenda. Good to look.

astearns: Thanks everyone for calling in

s/show cares/show cares about how lines wrap/

I wonder if we were almost at consensus on Jen's last proposal?

I think we were

It seems that bradk strongly dislikes it, but everyone else either likes it or can live with it

I'd rather allow authors the option

so I'd lean towards bradk's position

I'd rather allow the authors the option too, but I can live with that if that's the only place we can find consensus

Rossen_?

I'd rather ask if folks can live with A / no-clamp

I don't think limiting the underline to +/- one or two line boxes is a creative limit at all

also, we didn't get into whether we meant "must clamp there" or "may clamp, must not clamp closer than that"

do we limit text-shadow?

we don't

ok that seems obvious then. they'

I do think it helps discoverability of "WTF I moved the underline where?" and if browser engineers are saying they want to do this for performance sake, I'm like cool. It won't impact Authors.

they're both decorative

I think authors would be confused by why the change in value stopped having any effect on the line

principles of least surprise, don't limit text-decoration positioning if we don't limit text-shadow

Confounded even

I'm at the point where I strongly dislike ALL the options because we've been debating too long. But I'd be happier with one of the other extremes: either no clamp & leave it up to authors, or clamp to a semantically meaningful definition of "underline" (e.g., midline in between x-height and 1em below the baseline). I don't like arbitrary restrictions.

I think strawpoll demonstrated far more A than other options

And the line thickness would still cause the same performance issues

so I'd really like us to find a way to get consensus on A, rather than begrudgingly picking a far less preferred option

If text shadow doesn’t have a limit, then neither should underline

boom

that's what authors are going to think

limitless text-shadow is already out of the box (so to speak)

myles said he considered the lack of limit on text shadow to be a historical mistake that we cannot fix there for compat reasons, but can fix here because it's new. I disagree, but that was the claim.

limitless text-shadow is excellent for retro 1980s style effects

Exactly. A cool creative effect that wasn’t necessarily anticipated by spec authors

yes

I also have used box shadow with giant spread values for backdrops for dialogs

I think it'd go with: "UAs may limit how far the underline may be placed. If they do so, the limit must be enforced by clamping the numerical value of the offset, not by visual clipping. The limit must not be less than ...." and we pick the largest ... that gets no objection.

that way, UAs that want to allow authors creativity can do so, and those who want to enforce a limit are at least forced to keep the underline visible

That gets into the interop problem again

😏👈 one meeelion ems

Someone tries to put an underline off-screen

it works in one browser

2vmax

it ends up on-screen in another browser

true

but you can do that with shadows, outlines, etc.

they clip, they don't clamp

bradk, I don't think implementations want to use viewport units in their clamping limits

they require recalculation every time the window size changes

sure, but if you have your shadow offset by 500px, it will be off screen on my phone, and on screen on my desktop. no need to invoke clamping for that problem to occur

So I don't get why this is a problem now and not before.

That's fine because you designed for desktop, and some things you have to scroll to on a phone, it's OK

the problem is you *try* to put something off-scren

and then it's visible on someone else's computer

maybe you designed for phone, and it bugs out on desktop

really?

If you could have viewport units, it would solve that part though

I put my shadow 500px away to make it off screen, so that I can animate it into view when $foo happens, but I failed and it shows on big phones and desktop.

same problem with the underline

Sort of

but while I agree it's a problem in theory, I don't recall ever running into that

If the limit is going to be as far away as 2vmax or thereabouts, then I'd like to reresolve on clipping

"may clamp, but not closer than X" has the same problem, which I think is theoretical, not real life

which is why I am disagreeing with it

good. At least we know what we disagree about :)

If we're going with "no clamping, effectively, because the limit is huge" then we should have "and you clip if it's too far"

fantasai: Why clip?

If we're going with "clamping within reasonably visible range" then "clamp, don't clip"

bradk, results are less arbitrary, and if it's a UA-defined limit, you don't get an underline overlapping some random other content on the page in one browser but not on another

Offset 1vh, thickness 1vh

draw a box, not an underline

Sorry I keep thinking we are offsetting the center of the line

or maybe we leave the clip vs clamp question open in the "may clamp, but no closer than X" version, and browsers who limit to nearby clamp, and those who limit to 65536px clip

I drew a drawing.

Offset -1vh, thickness 1vh

Jen, do you mean "must clamp there" or "may clamp, but no closer than there".

Florian, our job is to create inteorp.

I take that as a vote for "must clamp there" :)

Thanks jensimmons :)

topic: end

:)

trackbot, end meeting

(sorry - didn't mean to stop the discussion here. I just wanted to make sure the bot was done)

I gotta leave anyway :)

something to consider for text-{decoration|overline|strikethrough|underline}-width: thin|medium|thick values?

issue-worthy?

^ w3c/csswg-drafts #4125