- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 07:46:30 -0700
- To: Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org, Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com> wrote: > On 09/13/2012 02:06 AM, fantasai wrote: >> >> - RESOLVED: Accept CSS2.1 edits in >> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2012JulSep/0293.html > > > Could this be made public? This was technical discussion, so it's safe to share. (Well, it wasn't intended to be discussion - just input to the telcon.) Reproduced below: Hi, I'd like to propose the following agenda items: 1.) We resolved in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Aug/0298.html that the visual effect of the values 'auto' and 'scroll' on the table box is exactly the same as that of the value 'visible', and I issued a CfC [https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2012JulSep/0165.html ] on the proposed wording in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Aug/0308.html . There were no responses, so hopefully we can nod that through. 2.) I'd like to introduce the term "block container element" into CSS21 to help with fixing a couple of other spec bugs. The approach is to extend the definition of "principal box" to include the, er, principal box of inline blocks, inline tables and table cells, and then to define a block container element to be an element whose principal box is a block container box (which is an existing CSS21 term). Hence the following values of the 'display' property would make a non-replaced element a block container element in CSS21: 'block', 'inline-block', 'list-item', 'table', 'inline-table', 'table-caption', 'table-cell'. Proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Sep/0041.html ~TJ
Received on Monday, 17 September 2012 14:47:24 UTC