Re: [CSS21] stack level definitions in 9.9.1

On Tue, 20 May 2008, Anton Prowse wrote:
> 
> Due to the number of problems involved, I have taken the unusual step of 
> presenting and analysing them in a separate paper rather than treating 
> them here on this mailing list: 
> http://dev.moonhenge.net/css21/spec/z-index/ .  The paper presents 
> several proposals for the clarification of the relevant sections of the 
> specification.

This paper appears to contain a series of editorial disagreements (areas 
where the author prefers a different kind of wording to the wording in 
the spec), one technical disagreement, and one typo report.

By and large I would recommend rejecting editorial changes, on the 
principle that making editorial changes is risky (it can lead to 
unintentional normative changes).

The typo (section 2.11 in the paper) is a valid concern. In section 9.5, 
"float's parent's stacking context" should be "float's parent stacking 
context" (note the removal of the second "'s").

The technical disagreement (section 2.10) is based on a misunderstanding 
of the spec. The section refers to "all floated dependants or only for 
non-positioned floated dependants" but in CSS a float cannot be 
positioned, making the distinction moot.


It is possible that this paper contains reports of errors that I 
misunderstood to be mere editorial requests. I would request that any such 
errors be documented in the form of a simple HTML document showing a 
precise case that is ambiguous according to the spec, or showing a precise 
case that the spec defines to have a rendering that disagrees with the 
majority of Web browsers.

Such HTML files would significantly help the working group to determine 
the importance of the errors.

Thanks,
-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Tuesday, 21 October 2008 07:01:33 UTC