W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > December 2018

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-grid] Non-existent line names in abspos grid items (#3445)

From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 17:18:54 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-448675163-1545239933-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The CSS Working Group just discussed `Non-existent line names in abspos grid items`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: close this issue and accept the clarification note`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: Non-existent line names in abspos grid items<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3445<br>
&lt;tantek> fantasai, no, you're cherry picking lol. Appendices A, B, C, E, F etc. are all informative in CSS 2.1<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Wanted to confirm everything with WG since it's CR<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: Can you summarize?<br>
&lt;tantek> s/ E,/ D,/<br>
&lt;myles> s/i'd like to implement these/i'd like to implement these someday eventually/<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Issue was about the refence for line name. Currently define implicit lines have all the names. Abspos referring to line name not in explicit grid. Had been a case where someone referenced a non existant line in inflow grid and caused a line to be created and now abspos is looking for a different line name. We defined it's looking for implicit line. Added a note to clarify, everyone seems in agreement<br>
&lt;fantasai> tantek, A says it's informative explicitly<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Close no change or close with clarification note?<br>
&lt;tantek> Yeah, Appendix E stacking contexts in CSS 2.1 should have been made a chapter, not an Appendix. All other appendices are informative.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Close with clarification note<br>
&lt;lajava> I've  been discussing this with rego and we agree that the note clarifies the issue<br>
&lt;fantasai> tantek, B has to be normative because it contains the normative references<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: Objections to close this issue and accept the clarification note?<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: close this issue and accept the clarification note<br>
&lt;fantasai> tantek, C says it's informative explicitly<br>

GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3445#issuecomment-448675163 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 19 December 2018 17:18:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:41 UTC