W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2005


From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:51:53 +0100
Message-ID: <420B7509.8040509@annevankesteren.nl>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: W3C CSS List <www-style@w3.org>

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> (CSS2.1 will very likely be going through last call again because we
> have fixed a lot of problems that were raised in the last few months
> since getting to CR.)

Good to hear.

>> Because currently it reads:
>> # HTML UAs may apply the overflow property from the BODY or HTML #
>> elements to the viewport.
> We will be replacing that with:
> # UAs may apply the 'overflow' property set on the root element to #
> the viewport (instead of the root element). HTML UAs may also apply #
> the 'overflow' property from the BODY element to the viewport.
> (That was post-CR issue 50.)

If it is MAY instead of MUST authors are never certain if the page will
look as expected and they might need to apply additional properties to
be sure the page is displayed as intended.

(And if that is the case, it might not make sense to have this
"suggestion" in the first place.)

>> To be clear, this testcase is now INVALID:
>>  <http://annevankesteren.nl/test/css/p/overflow/xhtml-html.xml>
>> ...?
> Well, it's always been invalid HTML. :-)

Heh. (Note the MIME type.)

> Gecko renders that test correctly. There are no explicit pass
> criteria in that test but assuming you expected no red to appear,
> then it is indeed wrong.

Although my test case is invalid per section 2.5 and 3, section 4.1.2 of 
the CSS2.1 Test Case Authoring Guidelines does indicate that a "green 
page" with no red is a good thing

(Since my page does show "red" when the browser fails (the browser does 
not fail since the rules changed again, but that is a separate issue.)

  Anne van Kesteren
Received on Thursday, 10 February 2005 14:52:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:17 UTC