W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2012

Re: [CSS21] WD 4.2: invalid at-keywords

From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 12:17:32 +0100
Message-ID: <4F2BC24C.9080300@moonhenge.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
CC: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>
On 03/02/2012 11:26, Peter Moulder wrote:
> Thank you for replying at length, though I'm sorry to say that you
> missed this follow-up -- perhaps because of using the buggy web archive
> to read www-style:
>
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Apr/0086.html

I did indeed miss that due to the buggy archive functionality.  No 
worries!  (I keep reminding myself to do an Advanced Search for thread 
titles and not rely on the broken "next in thread" functionality, but 
sometimes I still forget ;-)

[[
> I've also started looking into the problem of why the mail archives
> are misbehaving. I notice that hypermail's archiving of the
> hypermail mailing list doesn't display this problem: both backwards
> and forwards links are present for navagating among a thread spanning
> more than one month. (Whereas in the w3c archives, the In-reply-to
> hyperlinks work across month boundaries, but there's no corresponding
> link in the other direction.)
>
> I see that a newer version of hypermail is available, and that one of
> its changes is related to replies to messages of a different period;
> though another of its features might conflict with the w3c patch,
> since it looks like the new version implements one of the features
> that the w3c patch added. That's about as far as I've got. (For some
> reason, I'm having difficulties applying the w3c-0.50 patch; though I
> haven't yet had a look at what's going on there.)

Thanks!
]]

I wonder why this issue is still listed as "open - errata" in the Issues 
Wiki [http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-254].  It sounds like this 
issue is in fact closed as invalid.


> Looking just for messages sent by me and that contain the string "pars" ignoring case,
> the following look relevant and include the information I was thinking of:
>
>    http://www.w3.org/mid/20110107194042.GC21438@bowman.infotech.monash.edu.au

Could you please confirm whether your issue is sufficiently dealt with 
in Issue 253 [http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-253] (which 
resulted in a spec change).


>    http://www.w3.org/mid/20110306141647.GA16349@bowman.infotech.monash.edu.au

Is that one covered by Issue 252 
[http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-252] (which was resolved as 
no-change for CSS21 and requires attention in CSS3)?


>    http://www.w3.org/mid/20110307023114.GA17954@bowman.infotech.monash.edu.au
>    http://www.w3.org/mid/20110307053404.GB17954@bowman.infotech.monash.edu.au

Are these latter two still open (and unhandled) issues as far as you're 
concerned, or are they part of Issue 252 (in which case I will list them 
as relevant URLs for that Issue)?


Cheers,
Anton Prowse
http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Friday, 3 February 2012 11:18:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:50 GMT