W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2014

Re: [css3-background] Restore box-decoration-break

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:32:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+cW+_cg+VfGYWiyPnL42rBB27XWPDkH3hGGDVBuJ7ym5A@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:15 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>wrote:

> On 03/04/2014 09:12 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
>> I don't particularly care which venue moves box-decoration-break forward,
>> but whichever path gets to REC fastest would be preferred by the TTWG and
>> Cox. It just seems to me that B&B3 is further along the path.
>>
>
> The box-decoration-break property was moved forward partly because it has
> less implementation experience than the rest of CSS3BG and largely because
> it fits better in the Fragmentation module anyway. I don't understand why
> it's critical to move it so long as both specs are in CR. Backgrounds and
> Borders is there already (effectively), and Fragmentation is almost there.
>
> If there's some kind of problem that requires them being in REC rather
> than CR, then what is it? Is someone threatening patent litigation?


No, that's not the issue. The issue is other W3C specs as well as external
specs that need to normatively reference box-decoration-break and are
otherwise held up until normative dependencies achieve a final REC status.
As I stated, I don't care where it is defined as long as there is no
significant delay. If folks are confident that CSS Fragmentation will reach
REC not much later than B&B3, then there is not problem. I agree that,
logically speaking, it is more closely tied to FRAG.
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2014 15:32:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 March 2014 15:32:48 UTC