[Bug 13693] New: [html5] Last Call comments on HTML5


           Summary: [html5] Last Call comments on HTML5
           Product: HTML WG
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: Other
               URL: http://www.w3.org/mid/0471DEB1-F407-4C00-8A10-BBAF5D29
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson)
        AssignedTo: ian@hixie.ch
        ReportedBy: mike+html-wg-mailbot@w3.org
         QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
                CC: mike@w3.org, public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org,

public-html-comments posting from: "Linss, Peter" <peter.linss@hp.com>

Following are the official last call comments from the CSS Working Group on the
25 May 2011 Working Draft of HTML5. Several members of the working group have
indicated an intention to file additional comments, those should be taken as
personal comments and not official statements on behalf of the CSSWG.


It is our understanding that the CSSWG defines pseudo-class selectors in its
modules, and the HTMLWG defines how elements enter the corresponding states in
HTML5. Given that understanding, this section seems to be missing normative
references to the appropriate specs, i.e. Selectors 3 / CSS3 UI / Selectors 4.

With regards to '':ltr'' and '':rtl'', these should be updated to '':dir()''
per Selectors 4: see http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13346

We've added '':past'' and '':future'' to the Selectors 4 draft for you, btw.
Next time please ask us if you need a selector defined. We might not get to it
right away, but at least we will be aware that we need to draft a spec for it.

WebVTT rendering, ::cue, and coordination

While we acknowledge the utility of the proposed extensions to CSS, we feel
that it is inappropriate for the HTMLWG to be defining extensions to CSS. We
accept that the HTML5 spec contains a note that section 10.3.2 is intended to
be moved into a CSS module, however this isn't likely to happen without
communication and coordination between the HTMLWG and the CSSWG. In the future,
rather than defining CSS extensions in a vacuum, please contact the CSSWG with
your requirements and allow us to work together to define appropriate solutions
and coordinate them with other work of the CSSWG.

References to CSS Modules

A number of the references to CSS Modules are either incorrect or
inappropriate. Namely:

The link to CSS2.1 [CSS] should be http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/, not the CSS
Snapshot page.
The link to CSS Color Module Level 3 [CSSCOLOR] should be
http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/, not the development version.

The following references link to Editor's Drafts, not Working Drafts: CSS Style
Attributes [CSSATTR], CSS Object Model [CSSOM], CSSOM View Module [CSSOMVIEW],
CSS Ruby Module [CSSRUBY], CSS Basic User Interface Module Level 3 [CSSUI],
CSS3 Values and Units [CSSVALUES].

In the CSSWG, while Editor's Drafts are public, they are published at the sole
discretion of the document's editor and have not necessarily been reviewed or
approved by the CSSWG. Therefore they do not serve as official statements on
the state of the work being done by the CSSWG and should not serve as normative
references. Please link only to Working Drafts, Candidate Recommendations,
Proposed Recommendations, or Recomenndations. 

If the HTMLWG needs to reference work more recent than that published in the
last official CSSWG publications, please contact the CSSWG and we will expedite
review of the latest Editor's Drafts and update our Working Drafts as

Automatic height for transcluded elements

Section 4.8.2 describing the 'seamless' attribute attempts to specify the
sizing of seamless iframes, but it does so in an incomplete and somewhat
incorrect manner.

This section should instead delegate to CSS, where we should define how this
sort of sizing works.

Chapter 10 more clearly marked as informative

Chapter 10 says that it is not normative, but it says it in a rather roundabout
way. It would probably avoid confusion if it actually had the literal words
"informative" or "not normative" at the top.

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Saturday, 6 August 2011 10:46:10 UTC