A user account is required in order to edit this wiki, but we've had to disable public user registrations due to spam.
To request an account, ask an autoconfirmed user on Chat (such as one of these permanent autoconfirmed members).
W3C: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
* https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=505115#c141 | * https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=505115#c141 | ||
* When designing the Fullscreen/<dialog> stacking model, the lack of a living standard spec for CSS that represented the current cutting edge status meant that features of CSS that were may have been overridden by one spec (e.g. CSS regions) were used by the proposal, without the implications being understood. (Specifically, it was suggested that CSS regions redefined how the containing block mechanism works; in general, without knowing what all the relevant specs are, there is no way to be sure that no other spec does in fact modify some underlying concept.) | * When designing the Fullscreen/<dialog> stacking model, the lack of a living standard spec for CSS that represented the current cutting edge status meant that features of CSS that were may have been overridden by one spec (e.g. CSS regions) were used by the proposal, without the implications being understood. (Specifically, it was suggested that CSS regions redefined how the containing block mechanism works; in general, without knowing what all the relevant specs are, there is no way to be sure that no other spec does in fact modify some underlying concept.) | ||
* http://www.w3.org/mid/[email protected] | |||
Revision as of 16:25, 23 April 2012
This is a list of cases where publication of specs on the TR/ page hurt.
- https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=688878
- https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=505115#c141
- When designing the Fullscreen/<dialog> stacking model, the lack of a living standard spec for CSS that represented the current cutting edge status meant that features of CSS that were may have been overridden by one spec (e.g. CSS regions) were used by the proposal, without the implications being understood. (Specifically, it was suggested that CSS regions redefined how the containing block mechanism works; in general, without knowing what all the relevant specs are, there is no way to be sure that no other spec does in fact modify some underlying concept.)
- http://www.w3.org/mid/[email protected]