- From: Dylan Schiemann <dylans@yahoo.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 13:55:40 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
--- Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > Between border and padding is generally recognised > as being the best > place. The specs are unlikely to give normative text > for this, because we > (the working group) want to avoid requiring > particular scrolling > mechanisms. It would be perfectly fine for a UA to > have no scrollbars at > all and simply allow the element to be scrolled > using a panning mechanism. I'll apologize in advance for being a bit of a pain in the ass on this. I feel that the working group is inconsistent in deciding when something should be non-normative, and when something should be added to the specification to reflect existing coding practice. In the case of X11 named colors, it was argued that the working group was including named colors to reflect existing practices. I and many others argued against including X11 named colors, or at least deprecating them, because they are a poor, inconsistent collection of names. As far as I can tell, they are still part of the CSS colors module. While I do respect Ian's rationale for not specifying where scrollbars lie in the box model, I find this to be a more necessary thing to have in a specification than named colors. Certainly the scrollbar mechanism in browsers is more well-conceived than X11 colors with names like Dodger Blue (no offense Dodgers fans). I'm just looking for some consistency here. The working group should be looking to write a spec that reflects existing practices, or a spec that provides a well-thought out vision for future development, rather than both in a nonconsistent manner. -Dylan -- Dylan Schiemann http://www.sitepen.com/ http://www.dylanschiemann.com/ __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2003 16:55:42 UTC