W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > March 2011

Re: [CSS21] WG process - next steps for CSS21?

From: Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 06:47:49 -0800
Message-ID: <7eb354978bbdf6dbc7282bc176a0944c.squirrel@cp3.shieldhost.com>
To: "Peter Moulder" <peter.moulder@monash.edu>, "Peter Linss" <peter.linss@hp.com>
Cc: "Public CSS test suite mailing list" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Le Jeu 3 mars 2011 4:53, Peter Moulder a écrit :
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 12:02:05AM -0800, Peter Linss wrote:
>> On Mar 2, 2011, at 10:56 PM, Peter Moulder wrote:
>> > The messages from the public sent during the working draft comments
period don't yet appear on http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1 as far
>> > I can see.
>> > Note that a handful had a subject line with "[CSS 2.1]" rather than
>> the
>> > requested "[CSS21]"

Hello Peter Moulder and Peter Linss,

I have been using [CSS 2.1] a few times myself.

; though I didn't notice any other variations
>> > on that sent during the working draft comment period.
>> > In particular, we can reasonably assume that messages whose subject
contains `wd'

I have been using WD

or `working draft' (ignoring case) contain what the
>> sender
>> > considers to be an issue.
>> > Is that a concrete enough pointer, or are individual message URLs
>> needed?
>> Sorry, no, that's not concrete enough.
>> We already know to scan the list,
> Yes, I'm sure; I'm just pointing out that the problem isn't that the
> of issues isn't quite complete, it's that the transcription from
last-call messages to issues list hasn't started yet.  (At least as far
as I can see; are they just on a different page linked from there?) The
page says "Last mailing list sweep 2010-08-05 – fantasai", which
> a
> few months prior to the working draft last call period.
> The wording "if there are issues that aren't on that list" suggested
> the issues list was believed already mostly complete.  I thought it
important to point out otherwise to inform time allocation, given that
one person's said that they hope that the issues list can mostly be
> with before the F2F whereas fantasai says she may not have time to even
enter things into the issues list until the weekend (though hopes to
start today).
>> Yes, messages to www-style (with reasonable tags to identify them) are
sufficient to raise an issue.
>> If there are issues missing from our list,

There are issues missing on the list.

Sometimes, it is only better wording, introduction, assisting the careful
reader. One important one IMO is:
[CSS 2.1] WD 07 Dec. 2010: section 9.5.2 Introductory subsections and
sentences to orient reader

Another issue which I wonder (am not sure) if it should be explicitly said
in the spec relates to how border-spacing is implemented between 2

"The lengths specify the distance that separates adjoining cell borders."

I think such definition is sufficiently clear: border-spacing should apply
once, only once, between contiguous cells of same row-group or of
different row-groups.

Please examine






with different browsers (IE8+, Firefox 3.6+, Opera 11.x versus Chrome 9+,
Safari 5.x, Konqueror 4.6+)


[CSS21] WD 07 Dec. 2010: errors in section 17.6.1 Separated borders model
and width of table

[CSS 2.1] WD 07 Dec. 2010: section 17.6.2 "rule" -> "rules" (tiny
editorial change)

[CSS 2.1] WD 07 Dec. 2010: section 8.3.1 "subsequent" -> "following"
(small editorial change)

Regarding issue-172
    Closed. =fantasai= Write testcase.

I have also


ready to be submitted.

regards, Gérard
CSS 2.1 Test suite RC5 (January 11th 2011)

Contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite

Web authors' contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite
Received on Thursday, 3 March 2011 14:48:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:13:22 UTC