Re: Looking at editor’s drafts or /TR

(13/03/24 0:11), Simon Sapin wrote:
> Reporting issues in a WD without looking at the ED is just pointless, as they
> might have already been fixed. 

That's really the important point. Things in /TR are only useful if you
are writing tests, and that's not what Mike is doing.

> Sometimes, important details are a bit "hand-wavy" or plain undefined in
> CSS 2.1. In such cases, even a not-ready-to-be-implemented Level 3 ED
> can be immensely useful to implementers. (See counter styles, intrinsic
> sizes, …)

Except that css3-box is somehow questionable.

(13/03/24 0:56), Liam R E Quin wrote:
> Sure, a draft will usually be newer, and will likely contain a mix of
> agreed-upon resolutions and undiscussed text.

Sure. css3-box is probably such an example. But I think we shouldn't
give people the idea that ED contains a bunch of undiscussed text and
shouldn't be looked into (we want people to contribute and there's no
way you can contribute efficiently if you don't look at the EDs!). We
should instead encourage editors to mark those undiscussed text as
"Issue X" in red.

(13/03/24 0:56), Liam R E Quin wrote:
> I wrote quickly to try & head off the idea that was out
> of date and could be entirely ignored for all documents, which is a
> bad idea! :-)

I wrote quickly to give an answer to Mike's question, which was

(13/03/23 9:35), Mike Samuel wrote:
> Is there an easy way to determine which w3 documents are relevant
> similar to the "Obsoletes" in RFCs?

instead of saying "No, there is no such way". You guys might have better
ideas, and we really should have been focusing on this question.

Web Specialist, Opera Sphinx Game Force, Oupeng Browser, Beijing
Try Oupeng:

Received on Saturday, 23 March 2013 17:54:19 UTC