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

Re: [CSS21] response to issue 174

From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:19:14 -0800
To: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BC5270B3.3640F%tantek@cs.stanford.edu>

On 2/13/04 11:42 AM, "fantasai" <fantasai@escape.com> wrote:

> 
> Bert Bos wrote:
> 
>> This is the CSS WG's response to an issue you raised on the last CSS
>> 2.1 draft (http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-CSS21-20030915). We want to
>> publish CSS 2.1 as a CR in about two weeks. Please let us know this
>> week if you think our response is wrong.
>> 
>> Your e-mail:
>>     http://www.w3.org/mid/3F94ED06.5060006@escape.com
>> 
>>     # Stacking contexts are not necessarily related to containing blocks.
>>     # In future levels of CSS, other properties may introduce stacking
>>     # contexts, for example 'opacity'.
>> 
>>     The second sentence should not have [an example].
>> 
>> CSS WG response:
>>     No change. We disagree.
> 
> The reason I say you should not have an example is because
> referring to a CSS3 property in a CSS2 specification creates
> unnecessary dependencies between the two and should thus
> generally be avoided.

First, no dependency has been created because the remark is informative due
to the use of the phrase "for example".

Second, there is value to be gained by offering readers relevant
cross-references.  Because cross-references are valuable, they should
generally not be avoided.

Third, CSS3 Color (where 'opacity' is defined) is a Candidate
Recommendation, and certainly there is no problem with one CR referencing
another.

Tantek
Received on Friday, 13 February 2004 15:19:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:26 GMT