W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2015

Re: context css-menu within a table

From: Rafal Pietrak <rafal@ztk-rp.eu>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 20:16:52 +0000
Message-ID: <55B29D0C.7050502@ztk-rp.eu>
Cc: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr. " <jackalmage@gmail.com>


W dniu 24.07.2015 o 20:13, Tab Atkins Jr. pisze:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Rafal Pietrak <rafal@ztk-rp.eu> wrote:
>> W dniu 23.07.2015 o 22:39, Tab Atkins Jr. pisze:
>>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Sebastian Zartner
>>> <sebastianzartner@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 19 July 2015 at 08:06, Rafal Pietrak <rafal@ztk-rp.eu> wrote:
>>>>> Hello All,
[------------------]
>>
>> Isn't it calling for specs revision, then?
>>
>> (I haven't seen the actual wording of the specs, but google returned
>> pointers to "behavior is undefined" in that conext. What is the point in
>> leaving it undefined? I mean is "undefinition" serve any purpose there???)
> 
> A handful of things were left intentionally undefined in CSS 2.1
> because browsers differed, and there wasn't a strong expectation that
> they would converge their behaviors in a reasonable amount of time.
> Rather than hold up finishing 2.1 indefinitely, we undefined those
> behaviors, or defined more than one possible behavior that browsers
> could use.
> 
> In this case, browsers still haven't converged, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> 

Surely that makes sense.

But time pass, people get experience, and may be some parts of that
uncharted territory can get consensus now? That would be a call from
humble programmer having to cope with all those variants :(

Anyway, thank you for explanations.

-R
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2015 19:20:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:52:18 UTC