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

Re: [CSS21] Objection over Issue 203 (clearance and hypothetical position) (Was: Re: [CSS21] Clearance - the missing manual)

From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 09:40:00 +0100
Message-ID: <4D831A60.9080604@moonhenge.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
CC: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
On 18/03/2011 00:14, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Thursday 2011-03-17 23:40 +0100, Anton Prowse wrote:
>> I ask that the WG reopen Issue 203 and re-evaluate it without
>> reference to that cited, irrelevant post.  The Minutes and
>> Resolutions in [2] seem to indicate that the WGs currently proposed
>> resolution is not based on the cited post anyhow, and is instead
>> arose from an e-mail that David Baron wrote to Ian Hickson.  I
>> request that the points from that e-mail be presented publicly on
>> this mailing list, since it's beginning to seem that Issue 203 has
>> been hijacked by a different issue which has not yet been made
>> public, and resolved with a proposal that bears no obvious
>> relationship to the original problem.
> The email, in full (which I originally wrote as private email), is
> below.  Ian's response was very short and basically said he doesn't
> remember the original discussions well enough to be able to add
> anything to the current one.
> Apologies for not publishing this earlier; I meant to do so.

Thanks David!

It's now clear to me that Issue 203 was hijacked!

I haven't had time to review David's e-mail to Ian sufficiently to 
comment on its actual detail yet, but it's clear that it (and all the 
supporting material such as test cases, Bugzilla bugs, mailing list 
posts etc) concerns the second clearance calculation (specifically, 
whether we actually want to perform a second calculation at all.)  From 
a typographical perspective, there was a desire to perform this second 
calculation, and so it made its way into the 2007 CR spec, but now there 
are worries that (a) none of the big players have implemented it 
(although a couple of the important PDF renderers have) and (b) 
implementing it might break Acid2.  (Personally I doubt the latter since 
Acid2 doesn't invoke the second calculation, but I will check again.)

Please can the WG file this as a separate Issue on the wiki, since it 
has nothing to do with Issue 203; the latter concerns how one determines 
whether clearance is necessary, whereas David's e-mail concerns how, 
once clearance has been determined as being necessary, one calculates 
how much it should be.

Anton Prowse
Received on Friday, 18 March 2011 08:40:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:44 UTC