W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2011

Re: [CSS21][12.5.1 The 'list-style-type' property] decimal-leading-zero clarification

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 08:14:23 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDGaQ8jE=PPRMNqF7EYu3qf6nEFc2Pxuwk+fxp2+fJDJw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr> wrote:
> Le 01/12/2011 00:23, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
>>> So when Lists 3 is ready, it will make the matching parts of CSS 2.1
>>> >  obsolete and these parts won’t get corrections or clarifications?
>> Yes, unless there's something obviously wrong or confusing in 2.1.
> So when I find something unclear or under-specified in 2.1, it’s not worth
> reporting unless it’s really wrong as it will not get corrected?

Not at all.  If it's not yet covered by a level 3 module, we'll
definitely correct it in 2.1.

>>> >  When parts of a spec is obsolete, should it be marked as such with a
>>> > link to
>>> >  the new spec?
>> We haven't generally done so with 2.1.  As I said above, implementors
>> are expected to be reading the most updated version of the specs.
>> This can be seen somewhat easily by looking at
>> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/, and will be even easier once we get the new
>> Current Work page back up, which lists all the specs by maturity
>> level.
> I guess that this Current Work page will also list which specs are relevant
> or not? I was gonna use css3-content as an example but I just saw that the
> editor’s draft has a big red obsoletion notice. However the current version
> has no such warning. Nothing other that its age (2003) shows that it is any
> less relevant than Lists 3 as they have the same status (Working Draft).

Yes, it will.  Also, the obsoletion notice *should* have made it onto
the WD pages by now.  I'll poke the relevant people again to get it

> Also, most CSS3 modules are much bigger than the matching parts of CSS 2.1.
> As the implementer of WeasyPrint, I try to keep some sanity and start by
> only implementing 2.1. I only look at parts of CSS3 as I need them. (eg. I
> have @page { size: … } but not the rest of Paged Media yet.)

That's fine, but it's not a use-case we explicitly support.  You will
occasionally have problems unless you also read the latest module
(when it exists for the given feature).

Received on Thursday, 1 December 2011 16:15:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:08 UTC