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: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 11:32:44 -0700
Message-ID: <4FA2CF4C.7060705@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 05/02/2012 11:29 PM, Anton Prowse wrote:
> 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.)

There *was* proposed wording, and it *was* posted as a link in IRC:

Received on Thursday, 3 May 2012 18:33:15 UTC

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