[10:00:34] Meeting for CSS-Framework is about to begin [10:01:35] Meeting Notes: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FUdRcAq2d8njs8KAcfQmEyoZL74SXLsLp1rtc7E9z_I/edit?usp=sharing [10:03:09] Ping scott_gonzalez: jzaefferer: DaveMethvin: kborchers: [10:03:46] and @arschmitz [10:03:48] hey [10:03:55] hi [10:04:35] hi [10:05:08] Okay, so we have a few items on the agenda today [10:05:50] We've had some discussion about it in github, but probably should come to a firm decision on some of these items so we can move things along. [10:07:12] There is the ever looming question of "what are we going to call this thing" besides css-framework [10:07:59] * scott_gonzalez hates naming things [10:08:04] There are some name ideas that have been posted in https://github.com/jquery/css-framework/issues/14 [10:08:16] haha, so do I, scott_gonzalez [10:08:23] I typically just name things "Thing" [10:08:28] or "CSS Thing" [10:08:30] CSS Thing! [10:09:11] :) [10:10:31] well, cssthing.com is available :-p [10:11:08] but is there anything in the list of possible names on issue #14 that appealed to anyone? [10:11:13] I liked your suggestion of Chassis. [10:12:11] im probably partial but i liked draft :-) [10:12:29] i also liked Chassis and cbracco's suggestion of bedrock [10:12:51] id be happy with either of those also [10:13:29] bedrock is a responsive grid already [10:13:56] http://dfcb.github.io/Bedrock/ [10:13:58] oops [10:14:08] draft css will put us in competition with W3C drafts for searches. [10:14:19] true [10:14:45] scott_gonzalez: there is actually almost nothing https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ie=UTF-8&q=draft%20css [10:14:50] more nhl then css [10:15:21] csschassis.com and css-chassis.com and chassis-css.com are all available [10:16:57] most search results are for Cisco hardware installation guides https://www.google.com/search?q=chassis+css&espv=2&biw=1417&bih=776&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=8wF-VPKmKq3bsASssYCABg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAA&dpr=0.9 [10:17:20] yup so no real competition there [10:21:26] So looks like it's between Chassis and Draft? [10:22:33] Should we take it to a vote between the two in the issue? [10:22:44] that seems like a good idea [10:22:49] One week for people to vote, and then most votes wins. [10:22:56] +1 [10:22:58] Sounds good to me [10:24:27] Okay, I'll set up a vote after the meeting [10:26:25] (also everyone should be able to edit now) [10:27:11] so, next up is normalization decisions. [10:28:00] it seems we came up with the decision to use a modified version of the standard normalization [10:28:54] quickly looking through the support comments on normalize.css [10:29:09] it does not seem like if we went with that there would be much if anything we didnt want [10:30:14] because normalization does not generally address bugs but things that are intentionally inconsistent [10:33:03] * arschmitz crickets... [10:33:38] sorry, looking over normalize [10:34:33] I mean, only cases I could think of us maybe not using normalize.css for is maaaybe small, sup, sub type things if we want to style things differently [10:35:18] if we decided small shouldn't be 80% the size of the content around it [10:35:50] but arschmitz is right, this is mostly to address things that browsers intentionally do differently. [10:37:16] one advantage i see that chris bracco pointed out in that issue to using normalize or similar is that we could make it a dependency and easy to update with out a ton of effort [10:37:50] less maintenance and less reinventing the wheel [10:38:00] definitely [10:38:58] although I do like the idea of adding: http://css-tricks.com/inheriting-box-sizing-probably-slightly-better-best-practice/ [10:39:17] yeah for sure i like that too [10:42:31] So it seems like normalize.css handles a lot of the browser inconsistencies we're likely to run into. Probably just use that as a requirement, and maybe include the box sizing inheriting bit to the base styles for css-framework [10:42:58] i think if we wanted to use normalize it should be backed in [10:43:22] pulled in with like bower and rolled right up with everything else [10:43:42] rather then ask people to include another file from another repo [10:44:23] definitely [10:46:20] okay so onto the next topic [10:46:24] which should be a short one [10:46:51] naming conventions discussion is in full week and we should be having a phone call next week with the guys behind BEM to discuss that [10:47:40] They were hoping for a list of what are potential concerns / thoughts were about bem before the call [10:47:52] so they could have an idea what are thoughts were going in [10:48:17] scott_gonzalez: i think your big concern was maintainability right? [10:48:51] that it leads to out of control files that seem hard to maintain [10:50:47] Yeah, Jasper's early BEM implementation seemed like it was massively larger than conventional implementations, making it nearly impossible to maintian. [10:51:15] I could create a google doc of concerns that people can add to? Or we could add the notes to the agenda [10:51:39] Google doc would be nice so people that are not here could add to it after the meeting notes are sent [10:52:23] okay, put that on my list of things to do [10:52:40] I'll send the link out of everyone after the meeting [10:52:48] sounds good [10:53:10] We have 8 minutes left, so I think that gives us enough time to discuss performance testing and browser support? [10:54:07] yeah we really need this setup [10:54:26] but still no word as far as i have heard from Kris or Brian [10:54:29] Performance Testing we're still waiting on input [10:54:50] kborchers: you had mentioned that you talked to them at chrome dev summit right? [10:54:56] does someone want to ping them directly and ask them to post something in the issue? [10:55:38] I can get ahold of Kristofer for sure Brian some one else would have to [10:55:57] i dont know him [10:57:14] yeah they said they were going to be working on it last week [10:57:27] ok [10:58:18] okay, sounds good [10:58:24] maybe follow up and see what's up? [10:58:50] and on the final note in our last two minutes, browser support [10:59:07] Specifically, our favorite browser set ever, IE [10:59:42] i just pinged them so we'll see what they say [10:59:49] awesome, thank you [11:00:06] cool [11:00:44] right now in the issue there is a discussion if out of the box we want to support IE9+ or IE10+, with suggestions on how to support IE8+, or if we should just accept IE will be here for awhile I support IE8+ [11:01:26] downside to supporting older browsers is we can't use things like flex-box, however on the other hand IE8 is still used more than we care to admit, so it may not be wise to completely ignore tham for version 1.0 [11:01:41] bah, it's two [11:01:49] maybe bring up browser support in the beginning of the next meeting [11:02:14] right after we announce what the vote is for the name. [11:02:29] Do we have things we plan on using flex-box for? [11:02:52] i think the consensus has been we cant yet no matter what [11:02:58] you could use it to make a pretty awesome grid system that doesn't require all the extra divs [11:03:06] the support is not even fully there in IE 10 even [11:03:10] but support isn't really there for older browsers [11:03:31] maybe version 2.0 (I can dream) [11:04:29] yeah it seems like it might be possible in the semi near future but not realistic for V1 [11:05:14] so should 1.0 support IE8? or should we do IE9+ with the suggestion of how to get everything to work in 8? [11:05:33] im very torn on this [11:06:30] @jobot01_, any opinion? [11:06:32] DaveMethvin: Any guess on when core will drop dupport for IE8? [11:06:38] i have conflicting interest in that we want to use this for ui and mobile which currently support 8 but this is not ruled strictly by the needs of those in anyway [11:06:55] do what's right for CSS [11:07:02] i suspect we'll support IE8 for a while [11:07:03] but that doesn [11:07:11] t mean other projects need to do that [11:07:17] we're at the bottom of the stack [11:07:25] honestly though [11:07:29] we could do a graceful degrade for IE8. Like we don't give them gradients, just a solid background color. [11:07:45] i think if we want the broadest adoption possible [11:07:47] the only real issue IE8 should have a major problem with is media-queries [11:07:50] we need to support ie8 [11:08:09] so right now ie8 is somewhere around 10% of all the web? [11:08:14] we can recomend respond.js for that its not perfect but it gets the job done [11:08:15] I think so [11:08:24] thats pretty major amoutn [11:08:37] but again most of that is probably legacy old corp browsers? are they expecting to be consumers of this hot new stuff? [11:08:41] We're still required to support it for all government websites [11:08:54] DaveMethvin: consumers no viewers yes [11:09:02] ie11 has an ie8 jail for old apps that doesn't affect the internet [11:09:25] so if companies config their browsers right they can have ie8 for their old stuff but not break new stuff [11:09:51] i think i saw over 75% of blackfriday purchases were from desktop computers people surf a lot on their terrible old work computers [11:09:54] how does the need for IE8 support affect decisions? [11:10:08] that was my question as well [11:10:13] is it divs+classes vs flexbox/grid? [11:10:24] or is it minor stuff like gradients? [11:10:28] DaveMethvin: no flexbox is no go almost no matter what [11:10:29] that degrate pretty well [11:10:29] with IE8, it's more media querries [11:10:43] and yeah stupid stuff like gradient shadow corners [11:10:54] and all the fancy css3 stuff [11:10:59] What happens when the browser doesn't support media queries? [11:11:01] that most projects including ui and mobile just say oh well to and just use them anyway [11:11:09] Do all the rules get applied or just the ones outside the queries? [11:11:11] is it okay for it to look ugly as long as it works? i'd say so [11:11:17] if you're not using something like respond.js, your site won't apply any of the media querries [11:11:20] scott_gonzalez: just outside [11:11:26] That sounds fine for IE8 then. [11:11:29] so, for example, if you built your site with the default styles being mobile [11:11:33] It'll just get small device styling, right? [11:11:37] yes [11:11:41] Sounds fine. [11:11:44] yeah [11:11:46] and adding the desktop/tablet stylings on top that, IE8 defaults to mobile view [11:11:54] and respond.js is well established and adds media queries to ie8 [11:11:57] don't bend over backwards for ie8 iow [11:12:02] its from scott jehel / filament [11:12:21] so if people want they can use it though i would never bundle it or anything [11:13:10] othen then fancy css3 stuff and media queries i dont think it really poses any other issues [11:13:15] Could just have a link with the note "Need to support IE8? Here ya go" [11:13:22] and link to respond.js [11:13:27] yeah [11:13:43] we used to do that on mobile because we have some responsive stuff [11:13:53] IE8 does have have the ability to do gradients, just not through css3, but through a filter [11:14:11] yeah a lot of the css 3 stuff you can do with filters [11:14:25] so we could either support css3 stuff in IE8 with filters [11:14:38] or be like "nope, you'll just get a plain version of the site, and not the fancy things" [11:14:55] honestly though is it even likely we will use gradients much? they tend to be very slow and not used very much any more [11:15:11] only time I really see them lately is occasionally on buttons [11:15:32] the new ui theme removes them [11:15:40] mobile removed them in 1.4 [11:15:48] I'd think that can be a module that tacks on filter support via Sass. [11:15:55] Doesn't need to be done by us even. [11:16:10] yeah it does not seem like something worth worrying about to me [11:16:20] okay then [11:16:27] so IE8+ for version 1 then [11:16:32] ? [11:16:40] with the link to respond.js for full support [11:16:44] i think that makes sense with current market shares [11:17:22] and the only thing to really worry too much about with ie8 is not that it looks EXACTLY the same but that its just not broken lol [11:17:36] like you cant fall back from flexbox but missing corners who cares [11:18:03] if your using ie8 your probably used to missing gradients and corners and shadows [11:18:12] definitely [11:18:13] okay, on that note, I've held this meeting almost 20 past its allotted time, so I'm gonna say the meeting should probably be over now. [11:18:39] yeah i think thats any of the stuff on the agenda that really needs discussion right now [11:19:01] Thanks sfrisk. Hopefully we'll get more people attending future meetings. [11:19:16] yeah for sure [11:19:22] Definitely! I think this week was just tough being right after vacation. [11:19:42] sfrisk: you can email the meeting notes to the original email list [11:19:49] I'll send out an email with meeting notes, set up a vote, and a google doc for people to reaise their concerns on BEM [11:19:55] and remind them all that we now have meetings every tuesday [11:19:56] sounds good, arschmitz [11:20:01] Will do [11:21:05] See everyone next week