Do you want to know how the CSS WG works? Fantasai has written about:csswg, An Inside View of the CSS Working Group at W3C.
Resolved: When we get to a point where the CSSWG agrees the test suite is “good enough” for entering PR, we use that version (snapshot) of the test suite to enter PR, then continue to work on the test suite and errata.
Rationale: Question was “when do we stop working on the test suite?” We will always find deep technical issues. At some point we have to stop, publish the REC, and use the errata system from there. Some people argued that there should be concrete criteria for when the test suite is “done”, but no one offered any usable criteria. We have some tools to index the tests, but ultimately it will need to be a judgement call. It was further argued that work on the test suite should not stop just because we want to enter PR: the test suite will continue to be useful for driving interoperability and uncovering spec problems even after REC, and use of the test suite for PR transition should not prevent other uses of the test suite.
Once all of the tests written by Microsoft and by Hixie are reviewed and checked in, we will have a much better view of what remains to be done for the CSS2.1 test suite.
Noted: Specs should include a link to the official test suite, whether it is complete or not.
Resolved: The intent of the CSSWG is to post two copies of the test suite, one with the W3C Document license and one with the BSD 3-clause license. The copy with the W3C Document License will be the official conformance test suite.
Rationale: While the W3C Document License is fine for a test suite whose sole purpose is checking conformance claims, the amount of work that goes into this test suite does not justify limiting its use to that. Several major contributors do not want to contribute tests if these tests are not freed for other uses. These tests would be very useful in particular during the implementation development process, and the members of the CSSWG would like to make the tests in the test suite accessible for such uses. This requires placing them under a liberal open source license, and the BSD 3-clause license was chosen by consensus.
Resolved: Mobile Profile can move to CR as long as marquee and overflow are tagged as at-risk.
Resolved: The marquee and overflow properties are in the Box Module, which is still only a working draft. As long as they have not progressed to CR they block the Mobile Profile from reaching PR.
ex units in media queries must be relative to the initial values of the font properties, not to values on the root element (since style sheets can change those).
Resolved: Media Queries shall be published as a Last Call Working Draft.
Resolved: The editor’s draft of Media Queries to be moved to dev.w3.org.
This spec should be ready for Last Call soon.
The chairs chose for political reasons not to make any resolutions. The CSSWG hopes to, with the XHTML2WG’s approval, morph the XHTML2WG’s request for removing default namespaces into a request for clarification/guidance on the use of default namespaces in conjunction with Selectors and resolve the issue by adding an XHTML2WG-approved note to CSS Namespaces.