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

Re: [CSS21] deciding on errata to CSS 2.1 (was Re: Errata to disallow 'inherit' after comma in 'font-family')

From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 08:29:46 +0200
Message-ID: <4FA225DA.1000303@moonhenge.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
CC: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, GĂ©rard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On 03/05/2012 04:44, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Thursday 2012-05-03 01:51 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>> * L. David Baron wrote:
>>> In hindsight, I think we should reconsider this resolution once
>>> there's actual proposed text for the errata item.  And in the
>>> future, I think that given CSS 2.1's level of stability, we
>>> shouldn't consider proposed errata without an actual proposal for
>>> what text is being changed.
>> The Working Group should "consider" such issues, but if there is no
>> "patch", then it should only action someone to make one, and decide
>> about such a patch when it is available. It's quite normal that some-
>> one identifies a problem, but does not care at all how it should be
>> resolved, or how the modified requirements should be phrased, or in
>> fact they might not be able to come up with text that the group will
>> approve, and filling such gaps is why we have the Working Group; but
>> it would have to "consider" such issues to do that.
>> (I suppose David would largely agree with that, but the above might
>> be read by a casual reader that they need to send in patches if they
>> don't want their issue to be ignored by the Working Group, and that
>> would be a bad thing.)
> Agreed.  By "consider" I probably should have written "agree to".

I agree.  It's a two-step process: the first step is to agree that we 
want to add an erratum, and the second is to agree on proposed wording. 
  Often, the first step is "obvious" and is folded into the second.  (In 
the case of the inherit keyword in font-family values, the discussion 
was useful as a first step even if participants thought they were 
performing a combined first and second step.  Without actual proposed 
wording, though, there is nothing to add to the errata yet....  The 
issue remains on the radar, and I'll either ensure that somebody 
proposes concrete wording or I'll do it myself.)

Anton Prowse
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2012 06:32:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:15 UTC