csswg-drafts/css-page-3/issues.htm at c16edc424e7be5f962dcfc0ea18f67a055b064c3 · w3c/csswg-drafts · GitHub

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
<?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 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=""></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>