- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 09:51:48 +0200
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Hi Bert, Thanks for choosing to adopt the edits that I petitioned for! I'm very happy with the wording in the Editor's Draft, with just a couple of small remaining issues. Firstly, in the definition of the 'auto' value of 'z-index' in 9.9.1: # auto # The stack level of the generated box in the current stacking # context is '0'. [...] s/'0'/0/ since 0 is being used here not as the value of a CSS property but simply as an integer. (See [1]) Secondly, I very much hope that you will reinstate the phrase "non-positioned" in painting layer 4 and also in the subsequent paragraph, as argued for in [2]. With the ED wording it is ambiguous whether a relatively-positioned float lies on painting layer 4 or on layers 2/6/7, and whether positioned floats/inline blocks/inline tables/ with integer z-index form stacking contexts or pseudo–stacking contexts. Note that the phrase "non-positioned" was introduced for painting layer 4 in the 23 April 2009 CR as the resolution to Issue 60a[3], and it's not clear why it has now been removed from the ED. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Jul/0162.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Jul/0077.html [3] http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-60a Cheers, Anton Prowse http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Saturday, 23 October 2010 07:52:59 UTC