On 6/19/12 3:52 AM, ext Daniel Glazman wrote:
Le 18/06/12 13:09, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
On 5/30/12 10:38 AM, ext Daniel Glazman wrote:
Le 30/05/12 14:43, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
Chris, Daniel, Peter - when will the CSS WG make a decision on the
FPWD?
We'll try to make one today during our weekly conf-call. Please note
that we're going to review the bits of this document falling under CSS
WG's wings. In particular section 6. Peter and I already have
discovered
a few things :
1. "position: center" in section 6.1 refers to an Editor's Draft
that is
not actively discussed at this time. Only normative references
should be made to CSS specs or the Fullscreen draft will have to wait
until that ED becomes a REC to itself become a REC.
2. the ::backdrop pseudo-element is not explained in the document
outside of section 6.2. It's unclear to me why it is needed, what
it represents, etc.
3. the parenthesis in section 6.2 seems to me to contain a copy/paste
error "above the element below the element"
4. "layer" and "layer 10" in section 6.1 are unclear. "Layer" is used
nowhere in CSS references used in this spec. This must be clarified.
Does the latest ED
<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/tip/Overview.html> address
the above concerns?
No, item 2 above is still not addressed, and I guess most readers
of the document won't understand what functionally represents
::backdrop.
1. the definition of requestFullScreen() says what are the steps it
should run but it does not even say what feature it provides. I think
a sentence saying "The requestFullScreen() method sends a request for
the Element to go fullscreen. Please see section 7 for the Security
Considerations attached to this method." is needed.
2. allowfullscreen and iframe in section 7 should be hyperlinks. I note
the reference is at WHATWG while it should be at W3C.
These two points are still unaddressed too.
My interpretation of your comments is the first set (#1-#4 above) are
considered FPWD Showstoppers by the CSS WG and the second set of
comments (#1-#2) were your personal comments (since they are related to
the API and process) and as such, Not FPWD Showstoppers.
Given this interpretation - and of course, please correct it if it is
wrong - it appears the only remaining FPWD Showstopper is #2 in the
first set of comments. Is that correct?
(FYI, before the FPWD is published in /TR/, the HTML reference will use
a link to the W3C's HTML5 spec.)
-Thanks, AB
