W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > December 1999

re: RE: RE: CSS-2 z-index

From: <rev-bob@gotc.com>
Date: 23 Dec 99 17:43:07 -0500
To: Chris Wilson <cwilso@MICROSOFT.com>, www-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <19991223173919.SM01060@Unknown.>
> > It is a goal - in fact, post-IE5.0 we'd originally planned on doing this in
> > the next release, but it ended up being cut as our schedule plans changed
> > and we laid down plans for what is becoming IE 5.5.
> I do so hate "version-and-a-half" version numbers!  Could you please try to
> convince those responsible to stop corrupting how software versions are
> numbered and stick with x.y.z versions incrementing by ones (not fives)
> each revision?  There is no middle ground between an x revision and a .y
> revision.  Choose one and stick with it, don't add ".5" to a revision.
> Version numbers aren't floats.

I don't mind "point versions" - what I mind are revisions that *don't* change the version 
number.  IE is especially noteworthy in this regard and has been since 3.0; IE5 went 
through a couple of updates before they finally changed the version number to 5.01, and 
now all of a sudden 5.5 is in beta?  And what's all this about "service packs" for IE?  It's 
a browser update, folks - call it one, increment the number, and be done with it.

I greatly prefer the Netscape system - you update the software, you increment the 
version number.  If it's a bug fix or tiny update, increment by .01 - a significant update 
merits a .1, and a major revision gets rounded off to the next integer.  (I ain't sayin' 
Netscape's system is flawless - I mean, they're developing 4.0x and 4.5+ in parallel, 
while a third team works on Mozilla...no wonder 5.0's not out yet!  They should've just 
called 4.5 the 5.0 version and revised Mozilla as the 6.0 project, IMO....)

This goes beyond a personal preference from my point of view, because I'm involved in 
tailoring content.  How am I supposed to tell IE4.0 (original) from IE4.0 (SP1)?  With 
Navigator, I can theoretically adjust my content to work around bugs depending on the 
exact version specified in the UA string...but IE does not provide similar granularity.  
The matter is further complicated by the fact that one can upgrade script libraries without 
upgrading the full browser; it is theoretically possible to run IE 3.02a with the v5.5 script 
libraries...but what are the ramifications of this combination?  Does IE3 trigger all the 
events that v5.5 is capable of handling?  Nobody seems to know.  As an author, I have 
no real choice but to assume IE3 means the v3 scripts, and act accordingly.  Perhaps a 
little addition to the UA string is in order to specify script versions...?  (Of course, I'd 
also like to see a way for a browser to broadcast what PICS settings it will accept, so a 
sensitive page could dynamically adjust its content to the desired/accepted level...like 
bleeping curses for someone who doesn't like bad language.)

 Rev. Robert L. Hood  | http://rev-bob.gotc.com/
  Get Off The Cross!  | http://www.gotc.com/

Download NeoPlanet at http://www.neoplanet.com
Received on Thursday, 23 December 1999 17:38:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:52 UTC