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

Re: Is there a way...

From: Daniel Glazman <glazman@netscape.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 15:24:19 +0200
Message-ID: <3AD5AC83.7070300@netscape.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
Jan Roland Eriksson wrote:


> 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.

All others ?

  http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=74845

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

No standard in the world is stable. It just does not exist. And if someone
tells you that something is a stable standard, laugh.

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

This is just insulting.

> 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 :)

Even with a smiley, this is really insulting. This will be my last message
in this thread, I have other things to do than read insults.

> 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.

CSS is designed so it can at least apply to XML. A naming convention was
blocking that and was changed in accordance with the rest of the world.
*ALL* implementors in the WG agreed on that. Period.


</Daniel>
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2001 09:25:04 GMT

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