Errata for CSS level 2 revision 1,
CR version of 23 April 2009

These are the errata for CSS level 2 revision 1, CR version of 23 April 2009. These corrections have the status of a draft.

Section 4.2 Rules for handling parsing errors

[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.

Section 13.3.3 Allowed page breaks

[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.

Section 15.3 Font family: the 'font-family' property

[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.

Section serif

[2009-08-31] Spelling errors in font names. The correct names are “Excelsior Cyrillic Upright” and “ER Bukinist.”

Section 15.7 Font size: the 'font-size' property

[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.

Section Fixed table layout

[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.

Section 17.5.3 Table height layout

[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.

Appendix G. Grammar of CSS 2.1

[2009-08-06] Removed ambiguities from the grammar. (The ambiguities only affected spaces and were harmless.)

Bert Bos
Created: 20 April 2009
Last modified: $Date: 2009/08/31 17:27:44 $