- From: Geoffrey Sneddon via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 02:05:55 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
OK, this issue is more complex. The errata issue linked above (s.15.3a) isn't from the WG minutes it links to, seemingly, but from https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/0887.html: RESOLVED: John's proposal to resolve the issue is accepted, exact wording to be settled on list @nattokirai then sent a proposal to https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/0852.html, which led to a lengthy discussion with no clear conclusion. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/1182.html poses several questions about the note that were never answered, and https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/1148.html was never acted on. So it's not clear that errata is actually the exact wording we want. https://www.w3.org/Style/css2-updates/REC-CSS2-20110607-errata.html#s.15.3b appears to be the other part of John's proposal (and that is correct). John's proposal seems to be a generalisation of the issue originally reported by @tabatkins and @fantasai, if I'm not mistaken. (Please correct me if I'm wrong!) -- GitHub Notification of comment by gsnedders Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2772#issuecomment-397491939 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 15 June 2018 02:05:57 UTC