Re: [CSSWG] Minutes Telecon 2014-12-10

The bridge being full kept me from really being in the call, and I
didn't follow along well on IRC, so I have a few things I'd like to
object to.

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Dael Jackson <> wrote:
>   - RESOLVED: Keep allowing *-identifier when it's not digits and
>       recommend a string when it is.

I think we should simplify this, and *only* allow ident or string.
This means that *-foo would no longer be allowed, as it's a delim
followed by an ident.

The current resolution invites confusion when people use a
reasonable-looking :lang(*-foo) in one spot and it works, but
:lang(*-2000) somewhere else doesn't.  (Plus the also-mentioned issue
that :lang(*-foo) works, but :lang(foo-*-bar) doesn't, despite the
latter being a valid wildcard tag per the RFC.)  CSS's parsing rules
shouldn't be exposed to authors unless necessary.  It would be better
to require authors to use a string if they want to use asterisks, as
that works in all cases.  (If they're masochistic they could escape
the asterisk to make the whole thing a single ident, and that's fine;
we don't need to actually worry about that.)

>   - RESOLVED: Implementors may directly manipulate width and height
>       elements on the style attr being changed and change "resize
>       factor" to "resize function" to address fantasai's concern
>       (issues 47 and 53)

I object to keeping the optional hidden resize factor.  Nobody does
it, and to the best of my knowledge nobody plans to; I wouldn't be
surprised if there is code depending on resize causing explicit style
attribute changes.  We should just spec the actual interoperable
behavior and require that, rather than maintaining the polite fiction
of an imagined better world.


Received on Thursday, 11 December 2014 19:16:43 UTC