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

RE: [CSS21] stack level definitions in 9.9.1

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 02:25:14 +0000
To: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E214E9D1D@TK5EX14MBXC120.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> From: Anton Prowse [mailto:prowse@moonhenge.net]


> I'm very happy with the content and scope of the proposals; they
> address and satisfactorily resolve all the technical (as opposed to
> editorial) problems in 9.9.1, as well as making a couple of useful
> editorial clarifications to Appendix E.  Specifically, they solve 2.7,
> 2.8 and 2.10 in my original analysis[1] which describe problems with
> the definition of stack level, the handling of positioned elements with
> z-index:auto, the superfluous "local stacking context" concept, and the
> behaviour of floats and their descendants.
> 
> Whilst you may have wished for a smaller set of changes, I think that
> what we've got is in fact the most elegant and succinct approach
> possible in solving the technical problems.  I've attached a document
> highlighting the proposed changes within the full text of 9.9.1 (also
> available at [2]) in which we can see that they only amount to a few
> words here and there.

Excellent ! Thanks for that document. Very useful.


> I have one tiny niggle with your proposed edit #4:


> Perhaps we should insert "and of" at the end of the first line, as in
> 
> | The contents of positioned elements with 'z-index: auto', and of
> | non-positioned floats, inline blocks and inline tables...
> 
> since otherwise I don't think it's clear that "non-positioned" also
> qualifies inline blocks and inline tables in that proposal.  Or perhaps
> even spell it out and repeat "non-positioned" twice more in that
> sentence.

It's a niggle but a fair one. Bert will review and make the final edit. 
Maybe he can come up with a clear alternative that doesn't require a 
repeat.


 
> Niggle aside, I'm happy to put Issue 60[3] to rest now.  

Me too :)

Thanks!
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 02:25:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:28 GMT