W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 1997

Re: Backwards compatibility of new selectors

From: Liam Quinn <liam@htmlhelp.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 12:45:00 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: www-style@w3.org
Hash: SHA1

At 11:46 AM 03/12/97 -0500, Douglas Rand wrote:
>I'm objecting to a non-bc
>change to the CSS standard,  which is unnecessary and which will not
>work.  The protestations to the contrary - that somewhere in the CSS1
>standard there was some wording about ignoring rules which have bad
>syntax isn't enough to make this right.

Why are you trying to imply that CSS1's forward compatibility requirements 
were hidden or ambiguous?  The standard is very clear on this issue.

>> As long as nothing significant is changed there is never a problem,
>> losing sections and making minor rewrites is fine, or at least making
>> a significant document noting all of the changes.
>As David mentioned,  this isn't even a draft standard yet.  This is a
>proposal.  I'll surely make whatever comments about changes I please, 
>and I expect the comments to be addressed.  I would never tell our w3c
>rep to vote in favor of a spec. if I thought it had serious flaws.  This
>is clearly a serious flaw - the inability to work with existing

CSS1 didn't work with existing software (IE3) when it became a standard.  
Did you tell your rep to vote for it?

Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv


Liam Quinn
Web Design Group            Enhanced Designs, Web Site Development
http://www.htmlhelp.com/    http://enhanced-designs.com/
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 1997 12:43:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:45 UTC