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

Re: [CSS21] WG process - next steps for CSS21?

From: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 23:53:27 +1100
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-id: <20110303125327.GA4814@bowman.infotech.monash.edu.au>
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 12:02:05AM -0800, Peter Linss wrote:
> On Mar 2, 2011, at 10:56 PM, Peter Moulder wrote:
> 
> > The messages from the public sent during the working draft comments
> > period don't yet appear on http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1 as far as
> > I can see.
> > 
> > Note that a handful had a subject line with "[CSS 2.1]" rather than the
> > requested "[CSS21]"; though I didn't notice any other variations
> > on that sent during the working draft comment period.
> > 
> > In particular, we can reasonably assume that messages whose subject
> > contains `wd' or `working draft' (ignoring case) contain what the sender
> > considers to be an issue.
> > 
> > Is that a concrete enough pointer, or are individual message URLs needed?
> 
> Sorry, no, that's not concrete enough. 
> 
> We already know to scan the list,

Yes, I'm sure; I'm just pointing out that the problem isn't that the list
of issues isn't quite complete, it's that the transcription from
last-call messages to issues list hasn't started yet.  (At least as far
as I can see; are they just on a different page linked from there?)
The page says "Last mailing list sweep 2010-08-05 – fantasai", which is a
few months prior to the working draft last call period.

The wording "if there are issues that aren't on that list" suggested that
the issues list was believed already mostly complete.  I thought it
important to point out otherwise to inform time allocation, given that
one person's said that they hope that the issues list can mostly be dealt
with before the F2F whereas fantasai says she may not have time to even
enter things into the issues list until the weekend (though hopes to
start today).

> Yes, messages to www-style (with reasonable tags to identify them) are
> sufficient to raise an issue.
> 
> If there are issues missing from our list, it's not because we don't
> care, or don't look. It's just that there's a LOT of traffic on this
> list and we're only human. Sometimes things get missed, we do our best.
> Please help.

Thanks.  I don't have write access to the issues list, but I'll try to
make sure that the things I've reported are clear about how to resolve it
quickly, and to look for anything important from before 2010-08-05.


> It'll never be perfect, that's what errata are for.

I accept that, and I agree it's desirable for the current CSS2.1 text
(even without addressing any more issues) to supplant the existing CSS2.0
text.

The important thing is just that we don't imply that we aren't aware of
any remaining problems, such as by describing the document as having been
"widely reviewed for technical soundness and implementability" when we're
aware that significant problems uncovered by that wide review haven't
been addressed.  And it looks quite certain that there will be problems
that we'll choose not to address within CSS2.1, such as the various
element-versus-box errors, or for that matter the very notion of what a
box's siblings or children are and what properties they have being
undefined, and varying between existing implementations.  

pjrm.
Received on Thursday, 3 March 2011 12:53:58 GMT

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