W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2010

Re: [CSS21] Proposal for a replacement for section 17.2.1 (table anonymous objects)

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 00:51:20 -0700
Message-ID: <4C46A6F8.9080607@inkedblade.net>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 07/20/2010 09:21 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 8:15 PM, fantasai<fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>  wrote:
>> On 07/20/2010 05:16 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>> Final proposal for issue 110!  For the purpose of solving this issue
>>> for CSS2.1, I propose accepting Fantasai's revised algorithm for
>>> table-repair, with a small correction so that it properly handles
>>> floated elements inside a table* element:
>>
>> Tab, we already accepted the revisions that I wrote up with bz.
>> Those are already in Bert's to-edit list.
>
> I'm confused.  Your algorithm explicitly ignores abspos elements (and,
> accidentally I think, floats).  If it's already been accepted, then my
> making it slightly more explicit shouldn't be controversial, unless
> Boris is depending on an accidentally underspecified part of it that
> allows us to both think that the text is okay while drawing opposite
> conclusions from it.

The proposal doesn't ignore abspos. It considers it out-of-scope,
to be dealt with in issue 110. It was accepted with the understanding
that abspos would be handled in issue 110.

You're right it misses floats. I remember thinking about it; I don't
remember why I concluded no extra text was necessary.

> Heh, sure.  I like to be thorough, especially when the text I'm
> changing isn't actually in a spec yet.

Yeah, well, it makes it hard to figure out what you changed.
You're essentially giving me the option of
   a) Manually diffing the two texts and hoping that I, despite
      being human, did not miss any changes.
   b) Re-reviewing the entire proposal even though I know 95%
      of it is correct already.
Neither of which is particularly efficient, wrt either time or
accuracy. It's like giving me your updated .cpp file and asking
me to review your patch without using any diff tools.

If you want to give a full version *in addition* to changes,
that's fine. But don't dump spec text on me that's mostly
unchanged and ask me to review your proposal.

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 21 July 2010 07:51:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:29 GMT