| 13:14 | <GPHemsley> | Is there a way to make a flex item disappear if the flex container gets too small? |
| 14:34 | <astearns> | GPHemsley: you can give a flex item a min-width of 0px, a flex-basis of 0px, overflow:hidden and flex-shrink:1 |
| 14:35 | <GPHemsley> | astearns: Interesting. Thanks! |
| 14:35 | <astearns> | that should make it disappear when there isn't enough width in the container |
| 14:35 | <astearns> | (change to height for a column flex container) |
| 14:38 | <MikeSmith> | astearns: has your team had any discussion about implementing "float: footnote" |
| 14:39 | <MikeSmith> | astearns: or have you thought any about it yourself at least |
| 14:39 | <astearns> | not implementing, but I've thought about footnotes |
| 14:39 | <MikeSmith> | ok |
| 14:39 | <astearns> | MikeSmith: I think that the footnote-flow/footnote-region approach is better (surprise!) |
| 14:40 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 14:40 | <MikeSmith> | ok, I didn't actually know there was a footnote-flow/footnote-region alternative |
| 14:40 | <astearns> | it's in Dave Cramer's updated gcpm |
| 14:40 | <MikeSmith> | oh |
| 14:40 | <MikeSmith> | URL? |
| 14:41 | <astearns> | http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-gcpm/#footnote-area |
| 14:41 | <MikeSmith> | thanks |
| 14:41 | <astearns> | very preliminary |
| 14:41 | <MikeSmith> | ok |
| 14:42 | <MikeSmith> | ah yeah |
| 14:42 | <astearns> | we had some discussion about the approach at the last ftf |
| 14:42 | <MikeSmith> | oh, it's good to know there's been recent discussion |
| 14:44 | <astearns> | discussion: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Jun/0106.html |
| 14:46 | MikeSmith | looks |
| 14:47 | MikeSmith | ... and persuses slides at http://epubzero.blogspot.com/2014/05/footnotes-as-css-regions.html |
| 14:49 | <MikeSmith> | "Still requires magic" :( yeah |
| 14:49 | <MikeSmith> | would be nice to eliminate the magic |
| 14:50 | <astearns> | MikeSmith: one less-magic bit of basing it on named flows is that you can implement most of it in javascript (given regions support) |
| 14:50 | <astearns> | MikeSmith: we have proof of that in book.js |
| 14:51 | <MikeSmith> | ah OK will take a look at that too |
| 14:51 | <MikeSmith> | and yeah being able to implement most of it in js is a big win of course |
| 14:52 | <astearns> | off for a bit (picking people up from the airport) |
| 14:53 | <MikeSmith> | but if you implementing it in JS on top of native regions support, I wonder what other magic is needed |
| 14:53 | <MikeSmith> | astearns: ok thanks for all the pointers |
| 22:12 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: I think you might find the twitter discussion at https://twitter.com/sleevi_/status/498505466243084288 interesting |
| 22:16 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: on a related note, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on FIDO some time |
| 22:42 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: just came across https://twitter.com/sleevi_/status/466641443759874049 as well |
| 22:44 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: "Chrome's sandbox is open. Our CDM layer is open ( https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/media/cdm/ppapi/&sq=package:chromium&rcl=1400004143 … ). We're both implementing the same thing the same way" ... "Heck, even the "download on demand" is there ( https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/chrome/browser/component_updater/widevine_cdm_component_installer.h&l=1 … )" |
| 22:50 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: you also might find https://twitter.com/sleevi_/status/498505466243084288 worth reading |
| 22:51 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: and maybe meeting up with Ryan f2f to talk some time (assuming you guys would likely be in the same place at the same time at some ome point) |
| 22:55 | <MikeSmith> | "Scope will creep and drain 4ever" |
| 22:56 | <Domenic> | MikeSmith: yeah, been in contact with Ryan for a while, although not yet about the upcoming stuff... |
| 22:56 | <jgraham> | Someone should mention that the point of W3C workshops is to gather people who know nothing about the web into a single location so you can laugh at them all with maximum efficiency |
| 22:56 | <MikeSmith> | tee hee |
| 22:57 | <Domenic> | I am kind of counting on implementer disinterest to reign in the crazy? Except apparently Microsoft wants the W3C to standardize bignums |
| 22:57 | <MikeSmith> | jgraham: will add that to the internal documentation on workshop planning |
| 22:57 | <jgraham> | heh |
| 22:58 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: yeah, I think actually implementer disinterest will reign in the crazy. It's just a lot of waste and churn in the mean time |
| 22:58 | <Domenic> | MikeSmith: thus jgraham's point :P |
| 22:59 | <MikeSmith> | as Ryan puts it, ーWhen the @w3c puts "make members happy" over "viable and secure platform", its XHTML/SemWeb all over again. |
| 22:59 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: yeah, jgraham point taken |
| 22:59 | <MikeSmith> | at least we get the lulz |
| 22:59 | <MikeSmith> | so it's not a total waste, in that light |
| 22:59 | <Domenic> | members gonna be memberin'... |
| 23:00 | <MikeSmith> | entertainment value is worth quite a lot |
| 23:00 | <MikeSmith> | ah good verbification Domenic |
| 23:01 | <MikeSmith> | "we need to member up this WG some more" |
| 23:01 | <MikeSmith> | and dis-membered I guess |
| 23:01 | <MikeSmith> | oh man MUBAR |