W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2000


From: Matthew Brealey <thelawnet@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 11:40:26 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20000219194026.29851.qmail@web902.mail.yahoo.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
Cc: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
--- Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:
> Matthew Brealey wrote:
> > 
> > I would like to see reversion to the original 'hand' type for cursor
> on
> > the basis that this is what has been implemented in millions of
> released
> > browsers to date (i.e., Internet Explorer).
> "Original" in what sense? 

Original as in the first suggestion made in the (non-normative but still
implemented) note.

> Also, while I have some sympathy for avoiding gratuitous changes to
> implemented but unproposed technologies, I also see a clear neeed to
> balance this with the need for implementors to implement what the WG has
> decided should be actually specified, 

In this case of IE 4, what was implemented was the note. I find this
unfortunate, but I try to be pragmatic on these things and say that it is
more important to follow what millions of browsers use than what a wholly
theoretical specification says.

> rather than their own preferred
> variants. 

This is certainly a valid criticism in the case of IE 5, which followed IE
4 rather than the spec; in the case of IE 4, it is questionable whether
notes should be implemented, which might be the root cause of this

> Interoperability is not best served by changing a stable spec
> years after its release, when the portion of the spec is clear,
> unambiguous, and there are implementations of that stable spec which
> would
> be upset by such a change.

How many implementations are we looking at here?

[snipped arguments against 'hand', with which I agree wholeheartedly]

I am not arguing that the name is good or bad, merely that it works.

> Lastly, it was challenged on gounds of consistency; the other cursor
> values
> describe function, not form.

Yes. I have pointed this out in respect of the 'spinning' type. Needless
to say, my arguments have fallen on deaf ears. I expect we will be having
this same argument in a couple of years time on this type - it is
important to fix this sooner rather than later.

Incidentally it does not describe form very well - link would have been
> So, the CSS WG decided to use a different name, 

and one that I support entirely, if it wasn't for the fact of the
implemented base.
> Web content creators are best served by finding out what to use by
> reading
> the specs, 
Absolutely untrue. Web content creators should aim for style that works;
they should also try and balance this with the spec.

From Matthew Brealey (http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet (for law)or http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet/WEBFRAME.HTM (for CSS))
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
Received on Saturday, 19 February 2000 14:40:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:53 UTC