8000 csswg-drafts/css3-page/issues.html at 59480788bb3f6f376af111c5f8f14230e993f588 · w3c/csswg-drafts · GitHub
Skip to content

issues.html

Latest commit

 

History

History
608 lines (557 loc) · 22.2 KB

issues.html

File metadata and controls

608 lines (557 loc) · 22.2 KB
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<title>CSS3 Paged Media LC2 Issues List</title>
<style type="text/css">
div
{
border: thin solid black;
padding: 1em;
margin: 1em;
}
dt
{
font-variant: small-caps;
color: navy;
}
.open
{
background-color: #ffffaa;
}
.accepted
{
background-color: #aaffaa;
}
.rejected, .modified
{
background-color: #aaffff;
}
p.issueid
{
font-weight: bold;
font-style: italic;
color: navy;
}
cite
{
color: navy;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<h3><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-css3-page-20061010">CSS3 Paged Media 10 October 2006</a> Last Call Issues List </h3>
<div class="accepted">
<p id="issue1" class="issueid">Issue 1</p>
<p>URI: <a href="http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/20061012004438.GB7613@ridley.dbaron.org;list=www-style">http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/20061012004438.GB7613@ridley.dbaron.org;list=www-style</a></p>
<dl><dt>Description:</dt>
<dd>The default value for 'image-position' should be 'center' rather than 'top left'.</dd>
<dt>Proposal:</dt>
<dd>Accept the proposed change.
</dd>
<dt>
Resolution:
</dt>
<dd>
Accepted</dd>
<dt>State:</dt>
<dd>Closed</dd></dl>
</div>
<div class="accepted">
<p id="issue2" class="issueid">Issue 2</p>
<p>URI: <a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0062">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0062</a></p>
<dl><dt>Description:</dt>
<dd>;'fit-position' values out of sync with 'background-position'</dd>
<dt>Proposal:</dt>
<dd>Accept the proposed change. (Editorial.)</dd>
<dt>
Resolution:
</dt>
<dd>
Accept</dd>
<dt>State:</dt>
<dd>Closed</dd></dl>
</div>
<div class="accepted">
<p id="issue3" class="issueid">Issue 3</p>
<p>URI: <a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0066">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0066</a></p>
<dl><dt>Description:</dt>
<dd>interaction of 'fit' and 'overflow' unclear</dd>
<dt>Proposal:</dt>
<dd>Editorial improvements</dd>
<dt>
Resolution:
</dt>
<dd>
Accept</dd>
<dt>State:</dt>
<dd>Closed</dd></dl>
</div>
<div class="accepted">
<p id="issue4" class="issueid">Issue 4</p>
<p>URI: <a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0078">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0078</a></p>
<dl><dt>Description:</dt>
<dd>'fit' unclear in various ways<br />
<pre>
The definition of the 'fit' property in [1] is unclear in the
following ways:
1. It should be clearer that it is describing the scaling of the
*contents* of the replaced element rather than changing the
replaced element's box (i.e., the used width and used height).
2. It should avoid the use of the term "containing box" when it
means the element's box. (It could easily be confused with
"containing block".)
3. It should avoid the use of "replaced object" where the standard
term is "replaced element".
</pre></dd>
<dt>Proposal:</dt>
<dd>By and large, accept the proposed changes. (Editorial clarifications.)</dd>
<dt>
Resolution:
</dt>
<dd>
Accept</dd>
<dt>State:</dt>
<dd>Closed</dd></dl>
</div>
<div class="accepted">
<p id="issue5" class="issueid">Issue 5</p>
<p>URI: <a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0079">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0079</a></p>
<dl><dt>Description:</dt>
<dd>;'fit:hidden' unclear for images without intrinsic dimensions</dd>
<dt>Proposal:</dt>
<dd>Accept proposed editorial change</dd>
<dt>
Resolution:
</dt>
<dd>
Accept</dd>
<dt>State:</dt>
<dd>Closed</dd></dl>
</div>
<div class="accepted">
<p id="issue6" class="issueid">Issue 6</p>
<p>URI: <a href="http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/20061013035200.GA24767@ridley.dbaron.org;list=www-style">
http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/20061013035200.GA24767@ridley.dbaron.org;list=www-style</a></p>
<dl><dt>Description:</dt>
<dd>'fit' doesn't apply to images distorted by min/max-width/height</dd>
<dt>Proposal:</dt>
<dd>Extend this property to apply when both 'width' and 'height' are 'auto' and min/max-width/height are used. Another way of saying this is, extend the property to provide the following additional use cases: preserving aspect ratio, scale a replaced element such that it is as large as possible within a given rectangular area; and similarly, preserving aspect ratio, scale a replaced element such that it is
at least as large as a given rectangular area.</dd>
<dt>
Resolution:
</dt>
<dd>
After considerable discussion at the Nov 2006 f2f, the WG agreed to accept this
proposal.</dd>
<dt>State:</dt>
<dd>Closed</dd></dl>
</div>
<div class="rejected">
<p id="issue7" class="issueid">Issue 7</p>
<p>URI:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0084">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0084</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/78A3602ADF54BA4EAB53F378BF55588B01009CE5@G3W0067.americas.hpqcorp.net;list=www-style">http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/78A3602ADF54BA4EAB53F378BF55588B01009CE5@G3W0067.americas.hpqcorp.net;list=www-style</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/20070410124711678736.14a1d61e@empyree.org;list=www-style">http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/20070410124711678736.14a1d61e@empyree.org;list=www-style</a></li>
</ul>
<dl><dt>Description:</dt>
<dd>Alias for margin-box names</dd>
<dt>Proposal:</dt>
<dd>
<pre >== Aliases for boxes ==
Should
* bottom-right-corner
* bottom-left-corner
* top-right-corner
* top-left-corner
have duplicates as
* right-bottom-corner
* left-bottom-corner
* right-top-corner
* right-bottom-corner</pre>
</dd>
<dt>Discussion:</dt>
<dd>The group feels that providing aliases does not necessarily lead to better usability; can't be done in all cases; and does not have general precedent.</dd>
<dt>
Resolution:
</dt>
<dd>
Rejected</dd>
<dt>State:</dt>
<dd>Closed</dd></dl>
</div>
<div class="rejected">
<p id="issue8" class="issueid">Issue 8</p>
<p>URI:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0084">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0084</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/78A3602ADF54BA4EAB53F378BF55588B01009CE5@G3W0067.americas.hpqcorp.net;list=www-style">http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/78A3602ADF54BA4EAB53F378BF55588B01009CE5@G3W0067.americas.hpqcorp.net;list=www-style</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/20070410124711678736.14a1d61e@empyree.org;list=www-style">http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/20070410124711678736.14a1d61e@empyree.org;list=www-style</a></li>
</ul>
<dl><dt>Description:</dt>
<dd>
<pre >== Center and middle ==</pre>
</dd>
<dt>Proposal:</dt>
<dd>
<pre >
"Also, I personally consider middle as a one-dimension value while
center is a two-dimension value"...</pre>
Presumably, the request is to swap the terms 'center' and 'middle'.
</dd>
<dt>Discussion</dt>
<dd>These terms have been in place a long time, and that's what implementations are using. Dictionaries define these terms interchangeably. We don't see a need to change names at this point.</dd>
<dt>
Resolution:
</dt>
<dd>
Rejected</dd>
<dt>State:</dt>
<dd>Closed</dd></dl>
</div>
<div class="rejected">
<p id="issue9" class="issueid">Issue 9</p>
<p>URI:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0084">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0084</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/78A3602ADF54BA4EAB53F378BF55588B01009CE5@G3W0067.americas.hpqcorp.net;list=www-style">http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/78A3602ADF54BA4EAB53F378BF55588B01009CE5@G3W0067.americas.hpqcorp.net;list=www-style</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/20070410124711678736.14a1d61e@empyree.org;list=www-style">http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/20070410124711678736.14a1d61e@empyree.org;list=www-style</a></li>
</ul><dl><dt>Description:</dt>
<dd>Specification does not address 'how UA and CSS should work when it comes to
headers and footers'.</dd>
<dt>Discussion:</dt>
<dd>It is agreed that the headers/footers defined by Paged Media are subject to the
same cascading model as other CSS properties, and refer to the same headers and
footers as those currently accessible via user style dialogues. As the usual
cascading model applies, no spec changes are necessary.</dd>
<dt>
Resolution:
</dt>
<dd>
Rejected</dd>
<dt>State:</dt>
<dd>Closed</dd></dl>
</div>
<div class="rejected">
<p id="issue10" class="issueid">Issue 10</p>
<p>URI:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0084">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0084</a></li>
<li><a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0105">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0105</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/78A3602ADF54BA4EAB53F378BF55588B01009CE5@G3W0067.americas.hpqcorp.net;list=www-style">http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/78A3602ADF54BA4EAB53F378BF55588B01009CE5@G3W0067.americas.hpqcorp.net;list=www-style</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/20070410124711678736.14a1d61e@empyree.org;list=www-style">http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/20070410124711678736.14a1d61e@empyree.org;list=www-style</a></li>
</ul>
<dl><dt>Description:</dt>
<dd><ul><li>'image-orientation' property isn't Paged Media-specific.</li>
<li>'fit' property isn't Paged Media-specific.</li>
</ul>
</dd>
<dt>Proposal:</dt>
<dd></dd>
<dt>
Resolution:
</dt>
<dd>
Not optimal, but pragmatic: these features were initially driven by the print
community, so make some sense there; and are wanted in the market sooner than we
can get there in 'Box'.; Rejected.</dd>
<dt>State:</dt>
<dd>Closed</dd></dl>
</div>
<div class="accepted">
<p id="issue11" class="issueid">Issue 11</p>
<p>URI:</p>
<ul><li><a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0102">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0102</a></li>
<li><a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Apr/0083.html">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Apr/0083.html</a></li>
</ul>
<dl><dt>Description:</dt>
<dd>Various editorial suggestions.</dd>
<dt>Proposal:</dt>
<dd>Accept editorial suggestions.</dd>
<dt>
Resolution:
</dt>
<dd>
Accept</dd>
<dt>State:</dt>
<dd>Closed</dd></dl>
</div>
<div class="rejected">
<p id="issue12" class="issueid">Issue 12</p>
<p>URI:</p>
<ul><li><a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0102">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0102</a></li>
<li><a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Apr/0083.html">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Apr/0083.html</a></li>
</ul>
<dl><dt>Description:</dt>
<dd>
<pre >"Section 3.4.1:
This section lacks a normative reference for the definition of the
grammar that is being used here. I think it is a bad idea to mix
grammars as is done here. If EBNF would be used throughout this section,
the requirement
The value 'auto' may not be used as a page name and MUST be treated as
a syntax error.
would be unnecessary, it could be encoded in the grammar."</pre>
</dd>
<dt>Discussion:</dt>
<dd>He's right that we don't define the grammar of our grammar. Bert doesn't think there's a formal reference for our syntax. It's a superset of YACC. But we use the same syntax in CSS2.1. The WG feels it's sufficient. If Bjorn wants to contribute a complete grammar, that would be great.</dd>
<dt>
Resolution:
</dt>
<dd>
Rejected</dd>
<dt>State:</dt>
<dd>Closed</dd></dl>
</div>
<div class="rejected">
<p id="issue13" class="issueid">Issue 13</p>
<p>URI:</p>
<ul><li><a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0102">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0102</a></li>
<li><a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Apr/0083.html">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Apr/0083.html</a></li>
</ul>
<dl><dt>Description:</dt>
<dd>
<pre >"I think the "concatenating numbers" idiom to express the specificity is
a very poor one, I would prefer to see this expressed as an array."</pre>
</dd>
<dt>Proposal:</dt>
<dd>Add wording from 2.1 "(in a number system with a
large base)"</dd>
<dt>
Resolution:
</dt>
<dd>
Rejected; the idiom is the same as 2.1 and seems ok to the group.</dd>
<dt>State:</dt>
<dd>Closed</dd></dl>
</div>
<div class="accepted">
<p id="issue14" class="issueid">Issue 14</p>
<p>URI:</p>
<ul><li><a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0102">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0102</a></li>
<li><a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Apr/0083.html">
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Apr/0083.html</a></li>
</ul>
<dl><dt>Description:</dt>
<dd>"Section 3.5:<br />
I am worried about the list of properties here, I think it is not very<br />
precise, it is difficult to map this to CSS3 properties instead, and the<br />
specification would have to be updated whenever new properties should<br />
apply to the concepts defined herein."</dd>
<dt>Discussion:</dt>
<dd>We want new CSS3 properties to apply to the page context without AB3E having to
rev the specification, but we also want the detail for exactly which properties
apply.; Agreed to create an appendix with the detailed list for CSS2.1
features.</dd>
<dt>
Resolution:
</dt>
<dd>
Accepted</dd>
<dt>State:</dt>
<dd>Closed</dd></dl>
</div>
<div class="rejected">
<p id="issue15" class="issueid">Issue 15</p>
<p>URI:</p>
<ul><li><a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0105">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0105</a></li>
<li><a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0128">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0128</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/78A3602ADF54BA4EAB53F378BF55588B010AD9EB@G3W0067.americas.hpqcorp.net;list=www-style">http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/78A3602ADF54BA4EAB53F378BF55588B010AD9EB@G3W0067.americas.hpqcorp.net;list=www-style</a></li>
</ul>
<dl><dt>Description:</dt>
<dd>'fit' not generic enough, and doesn't allow scaling relative to
intrinsic size.</dd>
<dt>Proposal:</dt>
<dd>..."replace fit with something like replaced-size or scale with a syntax like background-size."</dd>
<dt><pre> OR</pre></dt>
<dd>
<pre >..."replace 'none' with &lt;percentage&gt;, where &lt;percentage&gt; displays the image at a percentage
of its intrinsic size"</pre>
</dd>
<dt>
Resolution:
</dt>
<dd>
The WG feels that 'fit'/&#39;image-scaling&#39; addresses use cases where the image is scaled in various
ways to fit a destination rectangle, and that it would be inappropriate
overloading to add a use case to scale the image relative to the source size.;
that would more suitably be another property. Rejected.</dd>
<dt>State:</dt>
<dd>Closed</dd></dl>
</div>
<div class="accepted">
<p id="issue16" class="issueid">Issue 16</p>
<p>URI: <a href="http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/452D8191.4040202@inkedblade.net;list=w3c-css-wg">
http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/452D8191.4040202@inkedblade.net;list=w3c-css-wg</a><br />
<a href="http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/78A3602ADF54BA4EAB53F378BF55588B47FA6A@G3W0067.americas.hpqcorp.net;list=w3c-css-wg">http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/78A3602ADF54BA4EAB53F378BF55588B47FA6A@G3W0067.americas.hpqcorp.net;list=w3c-css-wg</a><br />
<a href="http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/4535AD7E.1040703@inkedblade.net;list=w3c-css-wg">http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/4535AD7E.1040703@inkedblade.net;list=w3c-css-wg</a><br />
<a href="http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/20061018044223.GA19484@ridley.dbaron.org;list=w3c-css-wg">http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/20061018044223.GA19484@ridley.dbaron.org;list=w3c-css-wg</a><br />
<a href="http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/6.2.1.2.2.20061024082053.12a10290@namailhost.corp.adobe.com;list=w3c-css-wg">http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/6.2.1.2.2.20061024082053.12a10290@namailhost.corp.adobe.com;list=w3c-css-wg</a><br />
<a href="http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/453E313E.4000003@inkedblade.net;list=w3c-css-wg">http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/453E313E.4000003@inkedblade.net;list=w3c-css-wg</a></p>
<dl><dt>Description:</dt>
<dd>'image-orientation' text should clarify that the rotation is out-of-band to
the CSS layout engine.</dd>
<dt>Proposal:</dt>
<dd>By and large, accept the proposed word-smithing. Explicitly, the following
has been incorporated into the 23 Mar 2007 group version at
<a href="http://www.w3.org/Style/Group/css3-scr/css3-page">http://www.w3.org/Style/Group/css3-scr/css3-page</a>.
<blockquote><p>
'image-orientation' specifies an orthogonal rotation to be applied to an image before it is laid out. CSS layout processing
applies to the image after rotation. This implies, for example:</p>
<ul><li>The intrinsic
height and width are derived from the rotated rather than the original
image dimensions; </li>
<li>The height (width) property applies to the vertical
(horizontal) dimension of the image, <em>after</em> rotation.</li></ul>
</blockquote>
</dd>
<dt></dt>
<dt>
Resolution:
</dt>
<dd>
Accept</dd>
<dt>State:</dt>
<dd>Closed</dd></dl>
</div>
<div class="accepted">
<p id="issue17" class="issueid">Issue 17</p>
<p>URI:</p>
<ul><li><a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0128">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0128</a></li>
<li><a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0128">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0128</a></li>
</ul>
<dl><dt>Description:</dt>
<dd>What is the use case for 'fit: none;'?</dd>
<dt>Proposal:</dt>
<dd>Remove &#39;none&#39;/&#39;hidden&#39; from &#39;fit&#39;/&#39;image-scaling&#39;</dd>
<dt>
Resolution:
</dt>
<dd>
The WG felt that there wasn&#39;t a compelling use case for the &#39;none&#39;/&#39;hidden&#39;
value, and, given the concern, decided to remove this value. Accepted.</dd>
<dt>State:</dt>
<dd>Closed</dd></dl>
</div>
<div class="accepted">
<p id="issue18" class="issueid">Issue 18</p>
<p>URI: <a href="http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/78A3602ADF54BA4EAB53F378BF55588B679CF0@G3W0067.americas.hpqcorp.net;list=w3c-css-wg">
http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/78A3602ADF54BA4EAB53F378BF55588B679CF0@G3W0067.americas.hpqcorp.net;list=w3c-css-wg</a></p>
<dl><dt>Description:</dt>
<dd>'image-orientation' doesn't enable using image metadata.</dd>
<dt>Proposal:</dt>
<dd>Add a value 'intrinsic' to allow the author to indicate that image metadata
should be used to determine the desired rotation.</dd>
<dt>
Resolution:
</dt>
<dd>
Accepted; no group agreement yet on a value name.</dd>
<dt>State:</dt>
<dd>Open</dd></dl>
</div>
<div class="accepted">
<p id="issue19" class="issueid">Issue 19</p>
<p>URI: <a href=""></a></p>
<dl><dt>Description:</dt>
<dd>'widows' and 'orphans' should talk about block level elements rather than
paragraphs.</dd>
<dt>Proposal:</dt>
<dd>Editorial change accepted. The following text has been incorporated into the 23 Mar 2007 draft:
<p><cite>The 'orphans' property specifies the minimum number of line boxes in a block element that MUST be left at the bottom of a page. The 'widows' property specifies the minimum number of line boxes of a block element that MUST be left at the top of a page.</cite></p></dd>
<dt></dt>
<dt>
Resolution:
</dt>
<dd>
Accept</dd>
<dt>State:</dt>
<dd>Closed</dd></dl>
</div>
<div class="accepted">
<p id="issue20" class="issueid">Issue 20</p>
<p>URI: <a href="http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/456A86B6.8090007@inkedblade.net;list=w3c-css-wg">
http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/456A86B6.8090007@inkedblade.net;list=w3c-css-wg</a></p>
<dl><dt>Description:</dt>
<dd>'fit' wording improvements</dd>
<dt>Proposal:</dt>
<dd>By and large, accept the proposed editorial changes.</dd>
<dt>
Resolution:
</dt>
<dd>
Accept</dd>
<dt>State:</dt>
<dd>Closed</dd></dl>
</div>
<div class="rejected">
<p id="issue21" class="issueid">Issue 21</p>
<p>URI: <a href=&q 6082 uot;"></a></p>
<dl><dt>Description:</dt>
<dd>Does terming ':first', ':left', etc. as 'page selectors' cause confusion?
Should they be called 'page descriptors' or...?</dd>
<dt>Proposal:</dt>
<dd>Rename 'page selectors' to 'page descriptors' or some such...</dd>
<dt>
Resolution:
</dt>
<dd>
The WG felt that no change was needed.</dd>
<dt>State:</dt>
<dd>Closed</dd></dl>
</div>
<div class="accepted">
<p id="issue22" class="issueid">Issue 22</p>
<p>URI:</p>
<ul><li><a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Jan/0067">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Jan/0067</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/78A3602ADF54BA4EAB53F378BF55588B010ADA9C@G3W0067.americas.hpqcorp.net;list=www-style">http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/78A3602ADF54BA4EAB53F378BF55588B010ADA9C@G3W0067.americas.hpqcorp.net;list=www-style</a></li>
</ul>
<dl><dt>Description:</dt>
<dd>What does &quot;properties that can be used in the page context&quot; mean?; Are
other properties invalid or just ignored?</dd>
<dt>Discussion:</dt>
<dd>The WG wants to keep the door open for new CSS3 properties to apply in the page context (so we don't want to say that other properties make the document invalid or even that they are to be ignored); but we need to deal with properties that make no sense in the page context as well (so we can't say that all properties apply). The WG agreed to say that behavior for properties other than those listed is explicitly not defined.</dd>
<dt>
Resolution:
</dt>
<dd>
Accepted</dd>
<dt>State:</dt>
<dd>Closed</dd></dl>
</div>
<div class="issue">
<p id="issue" class="issueid">Issue </p>
<p>URI: <a href=""></a></p>
<dl><dt>Description:</dt>
<dd></dd>
<dt>Proposal:</dt>
<dd></dd>
<dt>
Resolution:
</dt>
<dd>
=WG Discuss=
</dd>
<dt>State:</dt>
<dd>Open</dd></dl>
</div>
<div class="issue">
<p id="issuex" class="issueid">Issue X</p>
<p>URI: <a href=""></a></p>
<dl><dt>Description:</dt>
<dd></dd>
<dt>Proposal:</dt>
<dd></dd>
<dt>
Resolution:
</dt>
<dd>
=WG Discuss=
</dd>
<dt>State:</dt>
<dd>Open</dd></dl>
</div>
</body></html>