- From: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 08:24:34 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, John Jansen <John.Jansen@microsoft.com>
- CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Hello, Since different people have different recollections of what was said or decided, it seems that we should discuss this again in an upcoming telecon to get a clearly documented resolution. As I said, I do not have strong feelings either way: my email was sharing what my own notes from the meeting captured, as I was building the list of changes to make in the next revision of the draft and resolutions on the issues raised in the spec. Vincent On 6/12/11 11:33 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 9:43 PM, John Jansen <John.Jansen@microsoft.com> >wrote: >> I'm going to ask this again because I made the mistake of including all >>of the summary and minutes in my last reply. I'm sure that due to that >>error, my question was completely missed... >> >>> RESOLVED: >>> >>> - use flow-into and flow-from properties and explain the interaction >>>with >>> the css3 contents module definition of the content property. The >>>flow-into >>> and flow-from properties should be <string> >> >> It's very difficult to tell from the minutes why this was resolved to >>be a string. Alex asked this as well [1]. Can anyone clarify? I'm not >>even sure who argued to make it a string rather than in ident? >> >> -John >> >> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jun/0155.html > >We didn't actually resolve that way, at least not to my memory. We >wanted to do something other than a bare ident, because it seems >relatively likely that this is a property we'd like to later add more >controls to, such as default flows or additional options, that may end >up being ambiguous with user-defined flow names. Strings or a flow() >function, though, are both equally okay. > >~TJ
Received on Monday, 13 June 2011 15:25:17 UTC