W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2001

Re: Is there a way...

From: Jan Roland Eriksson <jrexon@newsguy.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 15:00:11 +0200
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <5i5bdtk1afe1i48725am0u6bruq04nkpdl@4ax.com>
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 09:43:02 +0200, glazman@netscape.com (Daniel
Glazman) wrote:

>Jan Roland Eriksson wrote:
>> Objections would have been minimal if this addition had been suggested
>> as a part of CSS3 only, but what has been demonstrated here is foul
>> play...see also a discussion on exactly this subject in ciwas,
>> starts here...

>What are you exactly objecting about, Jan ?

Displayed W3C procedures.

>(me thinks that you always object)

If that day comes when I can find a piece of solid engineering emerging
from W3C (as opposed to 'ad libs' designed to cover up for earlier
shortcomings), I offer to turn my face to Mecca and "bang my head to the
ground" five times a day for at least a week. Until then my personal
deal with Allah stands, I don't bother him and he does not bother me.

>And, ne vous en déplaise, ciwas is *not* an official place of
>discussion for W3C issues.

I know, ciwas is just the place where we ordinary people (read users)
meet to exchange views.

If you can find this? its from August 7, 99 - read it...
Message-ID: <37b209e8.245188642@news1.newscene.com>

>Underscores were previously forbidden in all CSS identifiers,

I had no objection with that.

>so allowing them now does not break any existing practice...

This is where the 'bs' appears. In one single "blow", through an entry
in an errata document of all things, W3C actually improved the rate of
CSS compliance for MSIE and degraded all other CSS aware browsers at the
same time.

And we are supposed to have that after living with a _stable_ CSS2 spec
for three years?

Could you just not have displayed a bit of honesty and said?...
  "Hey guys, Chris asked us to change the spec since it would
   emerge to terrible problem for him to make IE6 fully CSS
   compatible if we did not."

And Bert's previous post here on the list just adds insult to injury.
"We the WG discovered last year...?????" something that has been common
knowledge to _us_ the users for a considerable longer time... (BS)

>and I hardly see any reason to complain about it.

I did not expect you to see reasons outside of the W3 world.

>CSS 2 is applicable to XML and CSS 2 did not allow identifiers
>beginning with an underscore.

No one has "died" from that in the last three years, right? (except MS
maybe?) And if you think that a simple underscore addition to CSS2 will
save the day, maybe you should spend some quality time on studies of XML
naming conventions :)

>That *had* to be a CSS 2 errata.

Nope. XML can not 'dictate' a naming convention for CSS, and CSS can not
'dictate' a naming convention for XML. They are two separate things.

-- 
Jan Roland Eriksson <rex@css.nu> - <http://css.nu/>
"It's a crying shame that CSS, designed to be so simple and
 approachable to non-programmers, has turned into such a
 cabalist's affair!" -- Todd Fahrner --
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2001 09:02:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:09 GMT