On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: >> On 06 Dec 2014, at 11:52, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: >>> On 06 Dec 2014, at 09:43, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com> wrote: >>> After reading fantasai and Ryosuke's replies, and talking to a few >>> people, I changed my opinion to not to define this in CSS UI at least >>> in Level 3. >>> >>> Currently Editing TF is working on overhauling selection and editing, >>> and defining selectability is a bit too hurry. CSS could define how >>> selection looks, but as Ryosuke said, I think it's better for the >>> selection and editing experts to define and CSS to refer to it. >> >> Right. If we can neither define how it looks nor how it behaves without >> referring to specs that haven't been written yet, the benefits of >> standardizing it now seem limited to me. Even if we get some high level >> description in, we could not go very far when it comes to writing tests. >> >> I am still of the opinion we should put this in level 4, marking the interop >> issues explicitly, and taking our time to solve them properly based on >> Editing TF's work. > > Question to those who supported bringing this back into level 3 (Tab, and maybe Ted, and maybe someone else?): > > Given that CSS-UI level 3 is trying exit its long cycle of LC/CR, and given the interop issues surfaced by this thread, do you still think this is something that should go in level 3 (with sufficiently vague definitions to ignore the interop issues for now), or should it go to level 4 (which I plan to start as soon as level 3 hits CR) where we can try to work through the interop questions? > > I favor level 4. Sure. ~TJReceived on Tuesday, 13 January 2015 21:52:45 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:50 UTC