Jim,
I think moving the statment to the list (no longer embedded in the
stylesheet) is a great idea. Also, I think if the comment originated with
the treatment of "inset" we should probably still mention it.
E.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott Bradshaw
Director, Software Engineering
Zoran Imaging Division (formerly Oak Technology Imaging Group)
781 638-7534
"BIGELOW,JIM
(HP-Boise,ex1) To: elliott.bradshaw@zoran.com
" cc: xp@pwg.org
<jim.bigelow@h Subject: RE: XP> CSS3 Page Media update
p.com> published: FW: W3C Member Newslett er, Volu me 9,
No. 9: 12 September 2003
09/29/2003
06:10 PM
Elliott,
You wrote ( Wednesday, September 24, 2003 5:34 AM )
> One question: 8.5.2 bullet 2 says "The rendering of the hr
> element is implementation dependent." This appears to be
> new. What was the discussion that led to this point? How is
> this different than the statement in 8.5.1?
>
The PWG spec [1] contains the following paragraph, embedded in the Enhanced
layout style sheet, following the rule set "hr { border: 1px }" :
"Inset is not support, representation of the rule is implementation
dependant."
When I reviewed the W3C spec [2] I thought it would be better to move the
statement out of the style sheet. So it became:
2. The rendering of the hr element is implementation dependent.
My intent was that the two statements be equivalent, I see now that
"representation of the rule" might not be interpreted as equivalent to
"rendering of the hr element" especially when taken out of the context of
the hr rule set and without the addition, explicit statement that "Inset is
not support[ed]".
However, I wonder if putting it at the beginning of the style sheet does
get
the reader's attention where it might be missed in it's embedded in the
sheet.
Jim
[1] http://www.pwg.org/xhtml-print/HTML-Version/CSS-Print-20030331.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-css-print-20030813/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 30 2003 - 10:27:50 EDT