[CSS21] WG process - next steps for CSS21? (was: Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2011-03-02)

> 204 - NEEDS PROPOSAL. I suggest we move to Errata.
(etc)

Please could the WG state what the anticipated next steps are for this 
spec!  There are *lots* of issues which were raised when the spec was CR 
that haven't been filed on the issues list, and lots more which were 
raised before the deadline for comments when the spec went back to Last 
Call which also have not been filed yet (at least, not publicly filed).

Also, will _all_ those issues raised before the LC deadline for comments 
that are not dealt with in the spec proper be instead assimilated to the 
Errata to coincide with the publication of PR?  Or is it possible that 
that will only happen subsequently (if at all)?

Finally, I feel strongly enough about one of the issues I raised that I 
am inclined to file a Formal Objection over it, although it's not clear 
to me if that's even an avenue open to non-members.  Please could the WG 
clarify this.  Specifically, I am disputing the resolution of Issue 203 
concerning the hypothetical top border position of a clearing element 
used in determining whether clearance is necessary.  It's easily 
demonstrated that using a hypothetical border position which is 
different from the actual border position (as defined in 8.3.1) results 
in clearance being introduced in situations where it is not needed and 
hence the clearing element being placed too high up (flush with the 
bottom of the float).  This dispute is documented as Issue (CL2) in [1].

<div style="float:left; width:100px; height:100px; background:red"></div>
<div style="height:20px; background:blue"></div>
<div>
     <div style="clear:left; margin-bottom: 100px">
	<div style="position:absolute; width:100px; height:100px; 
background:yellow"></div>
     </div>
</div>

(Without clear:left, the child div is already 20px past the float, yet 
with clear:left clearance is deemed necessary under the current spec and 
hence that div is actually moved up to be flush with the bottom of the 
float.)

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Dec/0312.html

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

Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 23:23:27 UTC