Re: [CSS21] Disposition of Comments

On 02/04/2011 08:49, fantasai wrote:
> So if you have sent in LC comments on CSS2.1, please take a look and
> make sure your issue was accurately recorded. In particular, if your
> feedback was rejected and you did not follow up to say whether you
> accepted or objected to the WG's resolution of the issue, please let
> us know your position.
>
> Disposition of Comments:
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css2-src/issues-lc-2011.html
> Latest draft:
> http://www.w3.org/Style/css2-updates/draft-PR-CSS21-201103XX/

Hi fantasai,

I have comments to make about the following issues.


Issue 225 currently marked as Invalid.  The WG couldn't understand the 
problem I was trying to illustrate, probably because my illustration 
contained inaccuracies.  I followed up in 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0345.html with an 
accurate (I hope!) illustration of the problem.  Note that this issue is 
superseded by 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Feb/0492.html which is 
not on the Disposition of Comments since it was raised after the 
deadline for LCWD comments.  My issue still stands, however, if this 
later issue (which concerns a superset of problems) is not addressed.


Issue 229 concerns how floats interact with other floats, line boxes and 
in-flow block boxes that occur earlier in the source; specifically the 
observation that the rules in the spec forbade floats from appearing 
higher than such objects but implementations routinely permit this when 
these objects do not share the float's containing block.

However, the Comment URL given in the Disposition should be marked as 
"(first half)", and the Response and Status URLs are wrong: they refer 
to a different issue raised in the second half of the Comment URL 
(namely "left floats being to the right of a right float", which is 
Issue 280).

The Response to Issue 229 is actually in the Minutes and Resolutions of 
the f2f at 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0272.html and I 
don't think it was separately raised on the mailing list.

I've followed up on the resolution given therein and on the Issues Wiki 
in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0650.html and 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0652.html but I am 
prepared to mark the f2f resolution as Verified-Accepted (although I'm 
very much interested to hear the WGs response to my follow-up!).


Regarding other issues that I raised before the deadline for comments, 
there are many which have not been filed on the Issues Wiki but have 
been responded to on the mailing list or wiki stating by marking them as 
postponed to errata or later revisions of CSS.  I'm fine with that.

There are others which were not responded to.  I'm happy to re-raise the 
majority of those for errata or later revisions, and I regard them as 
postponed for now.

There is one issue which was raised and responded to, but was not filed 
or "concluded".  David Baron provided a proposal which I'm happy with. 
I'd like this issue to added to the Issues Wiki if possible, even if 
it's postponed to errata.  The issue is:

FL3) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Mar/0366.html
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0346.html 
(last third)

Summary: ambiguities exist concerning how to flow line boxes "next to" 
floats in different containing blocks.


There are two distinct issues which have been grouped together as Issue 
207 on the wiki.  They both stem from the same post which I made: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Aug/0569.html.  The 
first half of the post concerns the fact that clearance results in 
discontinuities in position of subsequent siblings.  This was the 
original issue that was filed as Issue 207.  The second half of the post 
concerns the fact that clearance is underspecified.  The resolution 
given on the wiki is that the second half is deferred to errata.  I'm 
happy with that resolution, but I ask that the issue be filed as a 
separate Issue on the wiki.  The resolution also says that the first 
half is a duplicate of Issue 203.  This is in fact not the case, but as 
I said in 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0424.html I'm 
happy to defer it to errata.  I ask that the resolution on the wiki be 
updated with that information.


Please consider this post as verifying the Resolutions to all other 
issues raised by me on the Disposition of Comments.


Cheers,
Anton Prowse
http://dev.moonhenge.net

Received on Sunday, 3 April 2011 09:11:16 UTC