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

Re: [css3-values] language vs implementation limits

From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kanghaol@oupeng.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 11:11:14 +0800
Message-ID: <50AEE952.6010303@oupeng.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>
(12/11/21 4:47), Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>> Tab, If there isn't already language like you indicate below in some generic
>> guideline/requirement in one or more of the CSS specs, then perhaps it could
>> be added?
> 
> There is, for properties.  It's quoted by Emil in the first comment on
> that bug. <https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102735#c0>

Given that there's real confusion from a real implementer about the
current text. I'd suggest we either

A. s/Properties may/Properties could/

because the conformance class here is a spec/spec editor instead of a
UA. Using RFC 2119 keyword here might be the reason why this confused Emil.

B. introduce spec/spec editor as a conformance class

and say something like

  | A specification using these units may restrict the length value to
  | some range, but in that case the range must be specified.

, just so that the target of this conformance criterion is more clear.
Also, "Properties" here isn't very precise as all sort of CSS constructs
(keyframe selector, font descriptors, etc.) can use these units.

If we are going this way, we should probably mention

  s/must be specified/must be specified as a closed interval/

for calc() clamping too.


Cheers,
Kenny
-- 
Web Specialist, Oupeng Browser, Beijing
Try Oupeng: http://www.oupeng.com/
Received on Friday, 23 November 2012 03:11:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:02 GMT