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

Re: [CSS21] Errata, Major Errors, and Comments

From: Mark Moore <mark.moore@notlimited.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:16:30 -0700
To: <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20040714171928.8F9CAA05D9@frink.w3.org>



On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Ian Hickson wrote:
> Issues have been noted and are being dealt with (our internal issues list
> is up to 62 issues). We'll probably release an errata update of the spec
> in due course.
> 
> None of the errors so far have been particularly cricical, which is why
> there hasn't been any particular noise, I imagine. :-)

I'm presuming none of the 62 issues/errata will reset the 6 month CR clock
since they are not major errors.  Is this correct?


> > Can the WG clarify what might constitute a "major error"?
> 
> The spec contradicting itself, or leaving a non-trivial edge case
> implicitly undefined.

If a major error did arise, would there be an easy to grep tag in the
subject line?  (Similar to the "[CSS21]" tag at the beginning of CR
comments.)


> If someone raises a major issue (or any issue), it is noted, fixed in the
> internal draft, and at some future point will be included in a
> republishing of the CSS2.1 specification.

I understand the internal draft is just that, internal.  But, any visibility
or hints the WG might provide about the changes would be greatly
appreciated.  :o}

A simple compromise would be to create a thread here that documents the
proposed changes, or at least the identified issue that is causing the WG to
change the CR.  Again, the WG could tag each change with a
"[CSS21-some-arbitrary-token]" tag in the subject line.  You can make the
tag as neutral and content free as you'd like (how 'bout [CSS21-Glomer]).
Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2004 13:19:28 GMT

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