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

Re: [CSS21] Proposal to define "Block container element"

From: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:02:32 +1100
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-id: <20121011070232.GA11388@bowman.infotech.monash.edu.au>
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 06:45:06PM +0200, Anton Prowse wrote:

> > [erroneous inclusion of 'table-caption' among set of block-level-like
> >  things that aren't in fact block-level.]
>
> Table-caption is formally block-level in CSS21, though (like you, I
> suspect) I think really they're something new that happens to behave
> exactly like block-level in CSS21.

(No, sorry, I was just getting confused by the existing text in visuren.html,
 which to me reads as saying that it isn't block-level.  tables.html is clear
 that table-caption is block-level, but isn't referenced by the text that
 currently defines that term.)

> > That's in any case an outstanding issue with the table stuff, from memory:
> > [...]

> This is probably true, though I don't think I've got a record of
> that anywhere for adding to the errata list.  I'm *really* unlikely
> to spend much time on tables for CSS21 errata.  The chapter is so
> broken that I don't think it's a productive use of time.  The whole
> shebang needs rewriting in a css3 spec.
> 
> Thanks for your comments; let me know if any of rebuttals is
> unacceptable, else I don't plan to put forward any modification to
> the proposal.

By what criteria should content of CSS 2.1 be considered unacceptable,
or what criteria make a proposed change worth making?

Technical soundness (or its lack) used to be a sufficient criterion for
change, but it's been clear since before CSS 2.1 became a Recommendation
that that's no longer sufficient grounds to change this spec.  (E.g. the
above "this chapter is so broken that it isn't worth fixing in this spec.")

Without some clear criterion such as technical soundness, it's hard to know
what errors should be reported, or what information should be mentioned when
discussing issues on this mailing list, or even whether it's worth reporting
errors.

pjrm.
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 07:03:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:01 GMT