- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 21:06:30 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13693
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |WONTFIX
--- Comment #4 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2011-12-02 21:06:29 UTC ---
For more detailed responses, please file a single bug per issue. In brief:
> 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.
The references are at the top of the section.
> 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
Done.
> 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.
I think :past, :future, and ::cue() are better defined in the spec that needs
them, namely the WebVTT spec. (Just like, for example, the regions spec is the
right place to define the extensions to Element that it adds.)
> The link to CSS2.1 [CSS] should be http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/, not the CSS
> Snapshot page.
It's intended to link to whatever is the most recent normative text for CSS,
not CSS2.1 specifically.
> The link to CSS Color Module Level 3 [CSSCOLOR] should be
> http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/, not the development version.
Where public development versions exist, they are preferred as they represent
more up to date text.
> 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.
They're not intended to be links to anything official, they're intended to be
links to the most useful information.
> 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.
Please elaborate on what is insufficient in a separate bug, or provide a URL to
which the spec can defer.
> 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.
It is normative, ish. It is not non-normative. (Whether it is informative or
not is debatable, but that's a separate issue.)
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If
you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please
reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML
Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest
title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue
yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html
Status: Rejected
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: please file one bug per issue
--
Configure bugmail: https://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 Friday, 2 December 2011 21:06:37 UTC