- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:28:52 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 07/14/2011 01:49 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > Section 4.1.1 > ------------- > > * I recommend stating explicitly that when these pseudoclasses match > is determined by the host language, and the definitions in the spec > are merely informative descriptions of each. If a host language doesn't specify, I think the UA should be allowed to interpret Selectors onto it. So while the spec should have clear hooks for a document language spec to be more precise, the prose in UI should nonetheless be normative. > * I recommend referencing HTML as the informative reference instead of > XForms, as HTML is the language against which these are most likely to > be used. The relevant link is > <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete/links.html#pseudo-classes> > (or the similar link to the W3C version of the spec). I recommend linking to both. Why not, it's informative. > * Given that we deprecated the system colors, should we deprecate/drop > the system fonts as well? Probably a good idea. I'm sure jdaggett would cheer that, too. :) > * You can do fallback images now simply by using the image() function, > defined in Image Values. There are also many more types of images > than just<url>. I recommend replacing this with just<image>. (If > you'd like to avoid a dependency on Image Values, define<image> to be > equal to<url> for now, with a note that other specs may expand its > definition.) I recommend following css3-background's lead here: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/#value-types > * The 'inherit' value is globally defined for all properties, and the > preferred style appears to be to omit it in property definitions. Agreed, we should be consistent across specs. It causes confusion otherwise. (And yes, there have been posts a www-style about confusion on this exact issue. It is not a theoretical concern.) ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2012 15:29:23 UTC