W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2011

[CSS21] Issue 60 Edit Validation

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:20:27 -0800
Message-ID: <4D548EDB.5050902@inkedblade.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
There were too many mismatches in the edits for Issue 60 for me to put them all in
the issues list, so I am sending a separate email.

I would like Anton and Sylvain to review these mismatches and evaluate which changes
are editorially equivalent or superior, and which are real problems.

=== Mismatch A ===

The proposal specified:
   | 2. the stacking contexts of descendants with negative stack levels (most
   |    negative first).
The current spec reads:
   % 2. the child stacking contexts with negative stack levels (most negative
   % first).

The change is from
   stacking contexts of descendants
to
   child stacking contexts

I am unsure whether this is a problem.

The same change is present in mismatches C and D.

=== Mismatch B ===

The proposal specified:
   | 4. non-positioned floats.
The current spec reads:
   % 4. the floating descendants.

This is most definitely an error. As Anton points out, it's a regression of
Issue 60a.
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Jul/0077.html
   http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-60a

This error is also present in Mismatch E.

=== Mismatch C ===

The proposal specified:
   | 6. positioned descendants and stacking contexts with stack level '0'.
The current spec reads:
   % 6. the child stacking contexts with stack level 0, and the positioned
   %    descendants with 'z-index: auto'.

This change exhibits change A.

It also replaces
   with stack level 0
with
   with 'z-index: auto'
in the case of positioned descendants

I am unsure whether this is a problem.

=== Mismatch D ===

The proposal specified:
   | 7. the stacking contexts of descendants with positive stack
   |    levels (least positive first).
The current spec reads:
   % 7. the child stacking contexts with positive stack levels (least
   %    positive first).

This is an instance of change A.

=== Mismatch E ===

The proposal specified:
   | The contents of positioned elements with 'z-index: auto',
   | non-positioned floats, inline blocks and inline tables are
   | stacked as if they generated new stacking contexts, except that
   | any positioned elements and any elements that actually create
   | new stacking contexts take part in the parent stacking context.
The current spec reads:
   % Positioned elements with 'z-index: auto' (in layer 6),
   % floats (layer 4), inline blocks (layer 5), and inline tables
   % (layer 5), are painted as if those elements generated new
   % stacking contexts, except that their positioned descendants
   % and any child stacking contexts take part in the current
   % stacking context.

This mismatch exhibits several changes:

1. The change from
       non-positioned floats
    to
       floats (layer 4)
    is error B.

This is definitely wrong.

2. The verb has been changed from
      stacked
    to
      painted

I am unsure whether this is a problem.

3. The last phrase
      parent stacking context
    has been changed to
      current stacking context

I am unsure whether this is a problem.

4. The subject of the sentence is changed from
       The contents of positioned elements
    to
       Positioned elements

I'm unsure whether this is a problem or not. Not that the subject in the
proposal does not include the backgrounds of the element in question,
whereas thecurrent phrasing does.

(I have to say, the removal of this sentence from the original spec:
   # They are then painted atomically in the inline stacking level.
makes this paragraph very, very confusing. Would have preferred a correction.)

=== Error Z ===

Lastly, after
   # Within each stacking context, the following layers are painted in
   # back-to-front order
there should be a colon, but there is a period.

~fantasai
Received on Friday, 11 February 2011 01:21:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:37 GMT