W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2012

RE: [css3-background] clarify which properties in this module apply to ::first-letter and ::first-line

From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:28:43 +0000
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9710FCC2E88860489239BE0308AC5D171294ED2C@TK5EX14MBXC264.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here.

I'm not for changing things arbitrarily because *you* don't know why it's there and need to be shown why it says what it says.  Why don't *you* do the research on why it says what it says -- and incorporate that into your argument -- instead of proclaiming that others must do so?  You're proposing a change and thus the burden should be on you to prove a change is positive rather than demanding that someone else prove the negative.  Further, have you shown a valuable use case that warrants expanding functionality?

I've stated on more than one occasion that one of my concerns with the WG is that there seems to be little to no focus on *memory* of why the spec has what it has.  I grow weary of trying to justify what's in the spec against repeated whim of constantly wanting something new and different.  Why bother having a specification if you casually edit it to suit your fancy repeatedly?

By your metric, we shouldn't have any restrictions on anything because nobody would bother to waste their lifetimes covering everything in the specification from first principles on a daily basis.

Perhaps there should be more engagement on your end well before the spec gets to CR (and beyond) rather than throwing grenades at it after conformant implementations have been public for over a year.

Regarding your assertion...
"unnecessary restriction"

I reject it as a premise and you haven't proven it's unnecessary.  I see no discussion in the thread reflecting *any* research into why the specification has this very specific language.  You jump to "well it must be unnecessary".  What an "interesting" maneuver.

Regarding your assumption...
"If it is OK to change how pages render it in a future CSS4 module,"

I reject that characterization and am somewhat baffled that you drew that conclusion from what I said:
# Sounds like the responsible choice is to consider it for
# CSS4 rather than throwing another grenade at CSS3.

I think it's irresponsible to consider changing it for CSS3; that doesn't mean I support it for CSS4.  It doesn't say anything about how I'll feel about it for CSS4 actually.

I was asked a somewhat hazy question, and I gave my opinion.  You don't have to agree with it, but I find your response frankly hostile when I don't feel that's warranted.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brad Kemper [mailto:brad.kemper@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 11:22 PM
> To: Brian Manthos
> Cc: fantasai; www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [css3-background] clarify which properties in this module
> apply to ::first-letter and ::first-line
> On Mar 27, 2012, at 4:25 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> > I think the #-referenced quote below is pretty clear:  conformance
> requires not applying box-shadow to first-line.  At least one
> implementation (IE9) respects that conformance requirement.
> >
> > And now we're considering changing conformance requirements because
> we want another new shiny?  Sounds like the responsible choice is to
> consider it for CSS4 rather than throwing another grenade at CSS3.
> I don't think getting rid of an unnecessary restriction such as that
> can seriously be called "another new shiny", if no one can produce any
> reasonable rationale for why it was restricted in the first place. That
> just sounds like invective to discourage further changes of any sort.
> If the conformance requirement went away, would it be hard to change
> IE10 to conform to allowing box-shadow on first-line? If it is OK to
> change how pages render it in a future CSS4 module, then it would be
> even better to make the change sooner rather than later. Less time
> passing means fewer pages designed with one rendering in mind that get
> changed to another rendering with a new browser version. If it is a
> nonsensicle restriction, then it should be changed in CSS3 prior to PR.
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 08:29:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:12 UTC