- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 14:44:31 -0800
- To: Dennis Heuer <einz@verschwendbare-verweise.seinswende.de>, www-style@w3.org
On 01/13/2018 05:51 AM, Dennis Heuer wrote: > Gérard, > > On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 17:27:05 -0500 > Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org> wrote: > >> Le 2018-01-11 17:01, Dennis Heuer a écrit : >> >>> Hello >>> >>> It's embarrassing that authors hide communication behind third-party >>> systems, expecting participants to create accounts... >> >> Realistically speaking, what would you propose instead as an >> alternative to give feedback to CSS specifications editors? CSS >> specifications editors can be reached by using a public mailing list >> (available to all) under the control of W3C. That makes sense to me. >> Any public discussion forum that has no rules, no registration of >> some sort will easily become chaotic, ugly, spam-infested and useless. > > Other authors put an email address into the document. I had to find > this list myself, not knowing if they WILL actually read it. I don't > like this separating behaviour... However, I wonder for a long time > why no ticket/bug system supports a way of registration like for > mailinglists. In case of BugZilla you even have to beg to get your > account closed by the admin. Actually, one could even send tickets via > emails written in wiki script. I just mean... But THEY don't want to. > They want you to have an account - and they want your data! Hm, earlier drafts always linked to the www-style mailing list. It looks like the boilerplate changed to link to GitHub. It is good to link to GitHub since that is the preferred forum currently, but www-style still exists, and imho should be linked to as an alternative for anyone who has a problem with using GitHub. >> - - - - - >> >> Maybe (mere suggestions): >> >> 'fixed' should have been named 'fixed-in-viewport' or >> 'fixed-within-viewport' or something like that. >> >> 'scroll' should have been named 'fixed-in-element' or >> 'fixed-within-element'. >> >> 'local' should have been named 'not-fixed'. I agree the names are sub-optimal. Unfortunately when the 'overflow' property was created, the CSSWG picked a behavior for 'scroll' that imho didn't make any sense--affixing the background to the scroll container rather than to its contents--and then we had to come up with another keyword that meant “scroll with the contents”. :/ But it is, alas, not something we can fix now. ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 15 January 2018 22:44:58 UTC