- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 21:10:02 -0700
- To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, WWW International <www-international@w3.org>, CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
On 01/07/2017 07:02 PM, Florian Rivoal wrote: > >> On Dec 28, 2016, at 00:43, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: >> >> I've drafted up a Disposition of Comments for the 2013 CSS Text Decoration CR: >> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013 > > Issue 6[1] is marked as resolved, and it mostly is, but the minutes[2] indicate the plan was to: > * Add the new behavior and new keywords in L4 (done) > * Add a note to L3 saying we expect to change to match L4 (done) > * Update the default behavior in L3 to match the one in L4 in a subsequent CR update. (not done) > > It isn't entirely clear to me that we had solid agreement on that last point when we moved on, with Fantasai seeming in favor, plinss seeming against. > > Should that be counted as a separate open issue? I think, yes, that should be counted as a separate open issue. I can definitely see a good argument either way, given that <ins> and <del> need the old behavior and they can't get it if we take it away from L3 entirely. (Also I'm really tired right now, so maybe I'm confused.) ~fantasai > — Florian > [1] https://drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013#issue-6 > [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015May/0314.html >
Received on Thursday, 19 October 2017 04:10:40 UTC