W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > April 2009

[Fwd: Re: Your CSS2.1 Issues]

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:18:17 -0700
Message-ID: <49F91879.3070503@inkedblade.net>
To: "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
I need this archived.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Your CSS2.1 Issues
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 22:03:26 +0200
From: Anton Prowse

Hi,

Thanks for the mail.  I feel that the following as-yet untracked issues
merit tracking:

1.) Problem with clearance
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Mar/0282.html)

The least disruptive solution to the problem discussed therein is to say
that an element can still be said to have clearance even if that
clearance is zero.  In other words, clearance is a property that
elements may possess in addition to being a quantity which is applied.
This makes the whole thing hold together conceptually, and required no
conceptual changes to the 'clear' property.  To put it another way, the
specification currently incorrectly equates zero clearance with no
clearance, yet the two concepts would be different under the solution
above.  Of course, this solution requires some editorial changes to the
text of 9.5.2 The 'clear' property
(http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#propdef-clear) and 8.3.1
Collapsing margins
(http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/box.html#collapsing-margins) where clearance
is sometimes regarded as solely a quantity through the implication that
zero clearance implies /no/ clearance.

For example, in 9.5.2 the sentence,

   "Clearance is introduced as spacing above the margin-top of an
    element. It is used to push the element vertically (typically
    downward), past the float."

would need to state that clearance is actually a element property and
its effect is to prohibit margin collapsing and /then/ introduce spacing
(positive, /zero/ or negative).  Several other sentences in that section
would also need rewriting.

Equally, in 8.3.1 the sentence,

   "no non-empty content, padding or border areas or clearance separate
    them"

would need to change, but it is tricky to see how to do that elegantly. :-(

Also in that section, there are a couple of uses of the phrase,

   "An element that has had clearance applied to it"

which already sounds awkward anyway, and should probably be written,

   "An element that has clearance".



2.) Several issues with the inline formatting model
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Mar/0004.html)

There are many trivial editorial issues (which will hopefully be
addressed) but there are also a couple of more serious issues:

Issues 4a, 4b;
Issue 4c (? I don't know if this is simply editorial or not);
Issue 5;
Issue 7 (the middle sentence I wrote there contains a typo and instead
should say, "Is the leading added to the glyphs or to the *inline boxes
in which they sit*?");
Issue 8 (? possibly editorial, but important).


Cheers,
Anton Prowse
http://dev.moonhenge.net



fantasai wrote:
> Heya,
> I feel I'm slipping up a bit on figuring out which of your
> emails mark issues that I need to track and which are just
> discussion, or continuation of discussion about issues that
> are already tracked. If you could let me know if I've missed
> anything in the CSS2.1 issues list, that'd help a lot.
> Thanks~
> ~fantasai
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 30 April 2009 03:29:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:21 GMT