Re: [css3-background] Restore box-decoration-break

On Mar 4, 2014, at 5:08 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:

> 
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mar 4, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote:
> > On 04/03/2014 19:06, Glenn Adams wrote:
> > Cox would like to see box-decoration-break restored to this
> > specification rather than postponed to Level 4.
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > The property is not postponed to Backgrounds and Borders Level 4, it has been moved to the Fragmentation module:
> >
> > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-break/#break-decoration
> >
> > ok, thanks for correcting that; in any case, Cox is concerned that moving it into another spec will delay it being published in a final (REC) form, as compared to leaving it in B&B3
> >
> >
> 
> Given that REC requires 2+ implementations passing test cases for the feature, this concern suggests we have 1) sufficient test case coverage of box-decoration-break to establish that 2) there is a good interop. Do we have 1) and the data for 2) ? Or is Cox maybe offering to share the testcases in 1) that confirm 2) ?
> 
> You're putting the cart before the horse.

This statement is neither helpful nor accurate. Exiting CR requires a test suite and 2+ implementations passing each test. If you have testcases that lead you to believe box-decoration-break is as close - or closer - to interop than the other widely deployed and stable features in B&B then your concern is legitimate. If not then your concern is not really actionable.

> The CR period is also known as "Call for Implementations". The SOTD section notes that "A test suite and implementation report for CSS Backgrounds and Borders Level 3 will be developed during the Candidate Recommendation phase, which will last a minimum of three months." Let's get into CR before making conclusions about what tests suites are available and what is implemented.

As I am not the one expressing concerns about a specific feature missing REC it seems rather odd to imply I am prematurely jumping to conclusions. Second, B&B is not some brand new spec we started working on last year. It is quite mature and defines a number of features web content already depends on today. Thus adding features to B&B CR that have shakier or even no UA support implies delaying REC for the rest.  

As such I believe it is up to Cox to back up its concern with the evidence that led it. 

> 
> I think itís great if box-decoration-break is interoperable; but if itís not there yet, holding back REC for a number of B&B features with better cross-UA support may not be a better trade-off.
> 
> Nothing is holding back REC except our rather slow process of getting specs moved to CR.

You either misunderstand our Ďslow processí or are missing my point. Maybe both. See the previous comments.

Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2014 03:10:05 UTC