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

Re: @version rule

From: Jan Roland Eriksson <jrexon@newsguy.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 13:14:46 +0200
To: <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ppr7mt4pavaus44nnq84hibcoibvpaihsu@4ax.com>
On Sat, 28 Jul 2001 17:52:20 -0500, you wrote:

>>From: Jan Roland Eriksson <jrexon@newsguy.com>
>>To: www-style@w3.org
>>Subject: Re: @version rule
>>Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 21:26:50 +0200
>> >>From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
>>[wrote some sense]
>> >>To: Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@hotmail.com>
>>who obviously does not understand shit about the concept at hand.
>This is possible. Please teach me to understand. What's wrong with each
>of my points?

All of them; The original CSS1 spec already describes the concept of
"forward compatible parsing", if extensions to CSS are designed
according to those original rules of CSS, no version info at all need to
be introduced.

CSS support is _not_ a compulsory component of a user agent, any
programmer can decide for him/her self about what level of CSS (or what
mix of CSS versions) to code support for.

As long as the resulting code adheres to the concept of "forward
compatible parsing" as originally described, all is Ok and the idea of a
@version can be killed off.

Your error (and quite a few of "experts" error too) is that you seem to
think "backward" instead of "forward", give those two words a serious
though on how they connect to CSS parsing, and maybe the tokens will
fall down the hatch.

Received on Sunday, 29 July 2001 07:20:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:58 UTC