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

RE: [CSS21] Issue 60 Edit Validation

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:54:05 +0000
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E2AB85E88@TK5EX14MBXC113.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
I'm not comfortable making this request but at this late stage I would like 
the original set of edits to be taken as is. While I'm very sorry I missed 
Bert's message about his edits [1] the proposed changes were discussed with 
Anton at length and agreed to by the WG. Reading Anton's feedback to Bert [2] 
it's not clear Bert's edits improve the proposed text. Elika seems to have 
found other potential issues with it.

Since we had resolved the issue to everyone's satisfaction, and in the interest
of saving us precious time editing a fairly complete area as we're closing CSS2.1, 
I would rather only edit the proposal where it can be shown to contradict or 
otherwise conflict with the text being replaced. It seems none of Bert's edits 
addressed such concerns.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Jul/0056.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Jul/0077.html


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf
> Of fantasai
> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 5:20 PM
> To: www-style@w3.org; Bert Bos
> Subject: [CSS21] Issue 60 Edit Validation
> 
> 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 Monday, 28 February 2011 21:54:39 GMT

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