- From: Florian Rivoal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 09:26:26 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
My take on these results: All these are acceptable failures and should not warrant an change in the spec, possibly with the exception of outline-005, and text-overflow-018. SHOULD / No implementation: --- * outline-005: One browser does the recommended thing in a subset of the cases. Others don't. Maybe we want to continue encouraging this, or maybe we give up. * outline-014 to outline-016: Recommendation on error handling. Firefox does better than the rest. This is a question of quality of implementation. No need to change. * text-overflow-018: This is a question of quality of implementation, but no implementation tries. Maybe we want to continue encouraging this, or maybe we give up. MAY, No implementation: --- * resize-008 to resize-014: This is a forward compat hatch. resize-012 has been used by two browser. Keep. * cursor-image-013 to cursor-image-016: This is a forward compat hatch. Keep. * cursor-text-002: This is an open door for better quality of implementation / interaction with transforms. Keep. SHOULD, 1 implementation: --- * text-overflow-019: Quality of implementation, 1 browser doing better. Keep. * text-overflow-021: Quality of implementation, 1 browser doing better. Keep. * outline-013: Quality of implementation, 1 browser doing better. Keep. MAY, 1 implementation: --- * cursor-text-001: Quality of implementation & integration with writing-modes, 1 browser doing better. Keep. -- GitHub Notification of comment by frivoal Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1770#issuecomment-326241391 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 31 August 2017 09:26:23 UTC