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

RE: [CSS21] Issue 60 Edit Validation

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 17:50:57 +0000
To: 'fantasai' <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "'www-style@w3.org'" <www-style@w3.org>, 'Bert Bos' <bert@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E2AB87227@TK5EX14MBXC113.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Please consider this request void given Anton's follow-up. I will respond
to the latter (if needed).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sylvain Galineau
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 1:54 PM
> To: fantasai; www-style@w3.org; Bert Bos
> Subject: RE: [CSS21] Issue 60 Edit Validation
> 
> 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 Wednesday, 2 March 2011 17:51:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:38 GMT