- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 12:08:48 -0700
- To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 04/03/2012 10:39 AM, Brian Manthos wrote: > It's more than that. > > The requirement to NOT allow it for box-shadow was explicitly stated. Has the due diligence been done to research why that was the case? As I said, we attempted to align box-shadow with the CSS2.1 conformance requirements on borders because, like borders, it delineates the box. The result was wrong for two reasons: a) The reason borders were excluded in 2.1 wasn't because they delineate the box (as backgrounds also do this), but because they affect layout. b) Our wording forbid 'box-shadow' on ::first-line, whereas 2.1 allows borders to apply through the "may apply other properties" clause. > How many pages on the planet would be broken by changing that? I'd wager none. 'box-shadow' on ::first-line doesn't seem like an especially common thing to try. > Seems like an another post-CR arbitrary change to CSS3. We're supposed to correct errors. Given CSS2.1 allows UAs to apply more than the properties listed, and the CSSWG never explicitly discussed and resolved on this, I consider outright forbidding 'box-shadow' on ::first-line to be an error. Whether we allow it or not depends on the CSSWG's resolution on how to handle ::first-line properties going forward: on whether we choose to make ::first-line as permissive as possible or as restricted as possible. And if we intend for Level 4 to require box-shadow to ::first-line, then we certainly should relax the restriction in L3 so that it is not non-conforming. > There's a larger story here also: Don't put conformance requirements into the spec that are frivolous. It's a waste of implementer resources to enforce requirements that you end up casually waving off later. Nobody's perfect. You don't release software free of bugs; neither do we release specs free of issues. Of course we try, but it's unrealistic to expect we will succeed. ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 19:09:17 UTC