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

Re: [csswg-drafts] [CSS2] empty url() behaviour needs errata to match Level 3

From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:12:42 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-365677844-1518628361-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The Working Group just discussed `[CSS2] empty url() behaviour needs errata to match Level 3`, and agreed to the following resolutions:

* `RESOLVED: revert the change and open an issue noting that we had this change and we're not sure about it at this point.`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: [CSS2] empty url() behaviour needs errata to match Level 3<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2211<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Basically gsnedders found css2 and css3 disagree what to do with an empty URL.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Looks like we decided for L3 to make it invalid instead of refer to location of stylesheet. I couldn't find the minutes of that resolution so if anyone remembers that discussion it would be useful. We should make specs agree and impl to agree with specs.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Do we have data on current impl?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: gsnedders do you know? I tested using computed values wehre i got URL of the page, it was invalid<br>
&lt;dael> gsnedders: I think Chrome &amp; FF resolve to page itself. I'm not sure.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Proposal is change L3 to match impl and revert the invalid resource bit?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Would need to look what that looks like in the changeset. I have no real opinion on which way to go.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: I spent time trying to find the resolution that lead to this and I failed as well.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: What should we do fantasai ? Resolve to revert or do more research and see what's impl, have tests, and then decide on how to change L3?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I thinkw ehave a fairly good idea. Test we ran so far it's not treated as invalid. It's supposed to be parsed as incorrect. Since this is a spec in CR and we have 2.1 and previous version say valid points at page we should revert. If someone thinks revist we can re-open it. That's my opinion because we want to update V&amp;U.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: If we're not sure what to do don't make the change, file an issue, leave it open for later.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Given that we're still trying to figure out why we made the change it makes sense to open an issue.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Then let's revert the change tot he draft and publish<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: What about revert change to draft, leave change and note as a comment in the draft so there's something in the source?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I can mark it as an issue in the draft, this is CR spec. That text I can leave it commented in and that text is linked from the issue.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Sounds fair.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Proposal is revert hte change and open an issue noting that we had this change and we're not sure about it at this point.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Obj?<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: revert the change and open an issue noting that we had this change and we're not sure about it at this point.<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2211#issuecomment-365677844 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2018 17:12:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:24 UTC