W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2002

Re: css layout should be symmetrical

From: Jesse McCarthy <mccarthy36@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 18:00:32 -0400
To: <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E16uKnD-0006As-00@harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 20:38:24 +0100, Ian Hickson wrote:
>Right. And that document has not been "rewriten ... to conform to
>[the working
>group's] revisionist version of history" as you alledge. That is why
>I take
>offense at your statement.

That doesn't bother me.  As a rational person and a professional I 
take offense at many of your statements.

Ian Hickson: "For the record, that section of the spec has been 
rewritten . . . "

Jesse McCarthy: "You're going to need to rewrite 
more of that spec to get it to conform to your revisionist version of 
history."  You'll notice this is directed to you and does not mention 
the working group.

>This is exactly the case. The error *has* been corrected and
>documented. It is
>on the (normative) errata document. I even quoted the errata tiem in
>this forum,
>so the situation has been clearly exposed.

It would seem that you are unable to continue the discussion as you 
are unwilling or unable to face facts.  I simply can not make it any 
simpler than this:

CSS 2 Recommendation, 17.2 The CSS table model
"The following 'display' values assign table semantics to an 
arbitrary element:"

Ian Hickson
"Nothing in CSS affects the semantics [1] of anything in any 

Those statements contradict each other and the CSS Rec. takes 
precedence, obviously.  I asked you to explain this discrepancy and 
you have offered no explanation whatsoever.
Received on Sunday, 7 April 2002 18:05:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:01 UTC