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

Re: [CSS21] Previous comments?

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 14:35:21 +0000 (UTC)
To: Staffan Måhlén <staffan.mahlen@comhem.se>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407081426150.18162@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, [ISO-8859-1] Staffan Mhln wrote:
>
> I posted earlier about two possible issues in CSS 2.1. I'm wondering if they
> are resolved (and if so how) or otherwise what the process is since they were
> submitted well after the deadline?

We are keeping track of comments, and will probably be publishing a new CR
draft with the new changes in due course.

> The issues are:
> Absolute positioning versus inlines
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2004Mar/0178.html

There isn't anything about a negative containing block that causes a
problem as far as I can tell. The specification is implementable, and
makes more sense in typical use cases than the implementations we looked
at. (Typical use cases for this would only have one of 'left' or 'right'
set, not both. When both are set, if the width is indeed negative, then
one of the two will simply be ignored, since the content will be
over-constrained.) Since there doesn't appear to be interoperability, it
is up to UAs to fix their rendering to match the spec.


> Grammar issues:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2004Jun/0013.html

These are being examined.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2004 10:35:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:31 GMT