W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2017

Re: [css-text-decor-3] Updated DoC, open issues

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 21:10:02 -0700
To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, WWW International <www-international@w3.org>, CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <82e28a81-c14e-28b7-46a5-e0100413a647@inkedblade.net>
On 01/07/2017 07:02 PM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 2016, at 00:43, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>> I've drafted up a Disposition of Comments for the 2013 CSS Text Decoration CR:
>>   https://drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013
> Issue 6[1] is marked as resolved, and it mostly is, but the minutes[2] indicate the plan was to:
> * Add the new behavior and new keywords in L4 (done)
> * Add a note to L3 saying we expect to change to match L4 (done)
> * Update the default behavior in L3 to match the one in L4 in a subsequent CR update. (not done)
> It isn't entirely clear to me that we had solid agreement on that last point when we moved on, with Fantasai seeming in favor, plinss seeming against.
> Should that be counted as a separate open issue?

I think, yes, that should be counted as a separate open issue.
I can definitely see a good argument either way, given that
<ins> and <del> need the old behavior and they can't get it
if we take it away from L3 entirely.

(Also I'm really tired right now, so maybe I'm confused.)


> — Florian
> [1] https://drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/issues-cr-2013#issue-6
> [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015May/0314.html
Received on Thursday, 19 October 2017 04:10:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:08 UTC