These are the errata for CSS level 2 revision 1, CR version of 23 April 2009. These corrections have the status of a draft.
[2009-08-06] Clarified the rules for ignoring invalid at-keywords:
Invalid at-keywords. User agents must ignore an invalid at-keyword together with everything following it, up to the end of the block that contains the invalid at-keyword, or up to and including the next semicolon (;), or up to and including the next block ({...}),
or the end of the block (}) that contains the invalid at-keyword,whichever comes first.
[2009-08-06] Page breaks are also allowed when there is a gap after the last content of a block. Added the following to the first list:
3. Between the content edge of a block box and the outer edges of its child content (margin edges of block-level children or line box edges for inline-level children) if there is a (non-zero) gap between them.
[2009-08-31] The list of keywords in “(e.g., 'initial', 'inherit', 'default', 'serif', 'sans-serif', 'monospace', 'fantasy', and 'cursive')” isn't an example, but is in fact the complete and normative list.
[2009-08-31] Spelling errors in font names. The correct names are “Excelsior Cyrillic Upright” and “ER Bukinist.”
[2009-08-31] The two notes “Note: implementation experience has demonstrated…” and “Note 2. In CSS1, the suggested scaling factor… say essentially the same thing. They are replaced by a single note:
Note 2. In CSS1, the suggested scaling factor between adjacent indexes was 1.5, which user experience proved to be too large. In CSS2, the suggested scaling factor for a computer screen between adjacent indexes was 1.2, which still created issues for the small sizes. Implementation experience has demonstrated that a fixed ratio between adjacent absolute-size keywords is problematic, and this specification does not recommend such a fixed ratio.
[2009-05-20] UAs may render extra columns if there are unexpected columns in later rows of a 'fixed' table layout. In that case, the width of the columns and of the table is undefined.
[2009-08-06] Replaced
“Percentage heights on table cells, table rows, and table
row groups compute to 'auto' by
CSS 2.1 does not define how the height of table cells and table rows is calculated when their height is specified using percentage values. CSS 2.1 does not define the meaning of 'height' on row groups.
[2009-08-06] Removed ambiguities from the grammar. (The ambiguities only affected spaces and were harmless.)
Bert Bos