- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 14:02:50 -0400
- To: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, spec-prod <spec-prod@w3.org>
On 05/20/2016 10:18 PM, Martin J. Dürst wrote: > On 2016/05/20 22:57, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: >> One other thought on this topic: >> >> I wonder if this issue is a side effect of adding more rules in the base >> style sheet. Having more rules has the nice effect that we can factorize >> and reuse a lot more. It provides an off-the-shelf set of rules. etc. I >> haven't heard anyone complaining about the increase of rules in the base >> style sheet. >> >> But, it also means that the pubrules requirement is increasing, ie we're >> making it hard to change rules around table layout, pre, code, nav, >> ol.algorithm, example, etc. Those things were never intended to be the >> target of the pubrules checker. >> >> In other words, from the perspective of pubrules, there is a set of >> rules that we care in the base style sheet while there is a set that we >> don't mind if the authors start modifying them. Since we've been >> increasing the second set, the rule is getting more in the way. >> >> Is that correct? > > Assuming that's correct, then what about separating the rules we care > and the rules we don't care that much into two different files, and > require only the former to be last? My reluctance for that is that it means we would have 2 files, with one under particular constraint. There is also the case that we're increasing the number of requests but I guess this should be seen as job security for our system folks and the webperf group :) In the set of solutions, we could: 1- have two files 2- remove the requirement as formulated and instead make sure check a lot smarter, such as check the computed style of some of the elements instead. I haven't check with Comm to see which rule they care the most. Philippe
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2016 18:02:58 UTC