W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2004

Re: CSS3 Basic UI : Cursors

From: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 23:41:29 +0200
Message-ID: <16658.43401.397171.23630@lanalana.inria.fr>
To: Andrew Thompson <lordpixel@mac.com>
Cc: www style <www-style@w3.org>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>

Andrew Thompson writes:
> 
> "The Working Group has identified the following features as at risk of 
> being removed from CSS3 Basic User Interface when exiting CR. "
> 
> * 'cursor' property values: ew-resize | ns-resize | nesw-resize | 
> nwse-resize
> 
> We're currently implementing these features in Mozilla & derived 
> browsers.
> Is there a protocol we should follow to give formal notice when the 
> implementation is done?

There is no formal process at this time, but of course it is good to
say it here, so other implementers who might have been hesitating can
see it.

The formal process will start when the CSS WG decides to propose the
UI module for Recommendation status and it will last for at least four
weeks. Before that, we (the CSS WG) will have to produce a report of
the implementation status of each feature. That report will be public,
together with the proposed Recommendation.

Since Mozilla is represented in the CSS WG, I would expect that
Mozilla's implementation will already be part of that report, but if
somebody has been sleeping and it didn't make it into the report, that
will be the time to send a comment (to this list).

When that process will start depends in part on when the WG can make
time to develop tests and write a report, but also on what people tell
us about the progress of implementations and how soon people need the
spec to be a Rec. (It will definitely help us if people send us test
suites.)

Also, we are likely to hold up the Rec until we have a number of
stable specs that we can make a single Rec out of, to reduce the work
for us and for the W3C members and other reviewers.

> 
> Also, we're presently implementing these features without the -moz 
> vendor specific prefix.
> If a second interoperable implementation does not appear, where would 
> that leave us if they are removed?

You're doing the right thing. What you should do if the properties
finally don't make it into the Recommendation is not defined, I think.
It certainly wouldn't be fair to declare Mozilla nonconformant...

You can probably leave them and lobby for a second implementer. Then
we'll revise the Rec and include them after all.

This sounds like a good question for our QA WG to ponder :-) I'll pass
it on.

As to whether all Gecko-based implementation count as one: I don't
know. I think I would count a user agent that is not Mozilla, but that
somebody has made with a library from Mozilla, as a separate
implementation. But ultimately, it is not a matter of counting. Even
if we meet the criteria, but somebody sends a negative comment that we
can't explain away, the Director will most likely demand that we
resolve that issue and then try again.



Bert
-- 
  Bert Bos                                ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/
  http://www.w3.org/people/bos/                              W3C/ERCIM
  bert@w3.org                             2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
  +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92            06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Thursday, 5 August 2004 17:42:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:32 GMT