Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

On 5/30/12 10:38 AM, ext Daniel Glazman wrote:
> Le 30/05/12 14:43, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
>
>> Chris, Daniel, Peter - when will the CSS WG make a decision on the FPWD?
>
> We'll try to make one today during our weekly conf-call. Please note
> that we're going to review the bits of this document falling under CSS
> WG's wings. In particular section 6. Peter and I already have discovered
> a few things :
>
> 1. "position: center" in section 6.1 refers to an Editor's Draft that is
>    not actively discussed at this time. Only normative references
>    should be made to CSS specs or the Fullscreen draft will have to wait
>    until that ED becomes a REC to itself become a REC.
>
> 2. the ::backdrop pseudo-element is not explained in the document
>    outside of section 6.2. It's unclear to me why it is needed, what
>    it represents, etc.
>
> 3. the parenthesis in section 6.2 seems to me to contain a copy/paste
>    error "above the element below the element"
>
> 4. "layer" and "layer 10" in section 6.1 are unclear. "Layer" is used
>    nowhere in CSS references used in this spec. This must be clarified.

Does the latest ED 
<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/tip/Overview.html> address 
the above concerns?

-Thanks, AB

> I note that these 4 points should have been resolved long ago but nobody
> ever pinged the CSS WG about this document between beginning of february
> and now. I request that "joint efforts" become really joint efforts,
> thanks.
>
> Outside of the direct scope of the CSS WG, I would personnally add:
>
> 1. the definition of requestFullScreen() says what are the steps it
>    should run but it does not even say what feature it provides. I think
>    a sentence saying "The requestFullScreen() method sends a request for
>    the Element to go fullscreen. Please see section 7 for the Security
>    Considerations attached to this method." is needed.
>
> 2. allowfullscreen and iframe in section 7 should be hyperlinks. I note
>    the reference is at WHATWG while it should be at W3C.
>
> </Daniel>

Received on Monday, 18 June 2012 11:10:03 UTC