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

Re: New drafts, CSS 2.1, css3-webfonts, css3-fonts, css3-background, css3-ui

From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 17:33:48 -0700
To: <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B974677B.14D69%tantek@cs.stanford.edu>

On 8/5/02 5:09 AM, "Tom Gilder" <tom@tom.me.uk> wrote:

> 
> On Monday, August 5, 2002, 10:31:43 AM, you wrote:
>> CSS level 2 revision 1
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-CSS21-20020802/
> 
> While I feel that incorporating errata and cleaning up the specification is a
> good thing, I'm not too sure about this practice of removing properties and
> values.
> 
> After all, isn't the idea of CSS to be as backwards-compatible as possible?

Indeed, as Hċkon said, the forward compatible parsing feature of CSS,
combined with the fact that it is impossible to break
backwards-compatibility with something that hasn't been implemented, ensures
that CSS2.1 is backwards compatible in these regards.

> To
> me, it doesn't make sense removing things simply because they haven't been
> widely implemented yet.

That is essentially the purpose of CR.  If a feature in a draft is not
implemented, either the feature needs to be dropped, or the draft does not
proceed to PR.

> Could someone possibly clarify the reasoning behind the major changes? For
> instance, why drop downloadable cursors just after a major browser (IE6/win)
> has
> implemented them? How does keeping them in the specification cause a problem?

Indeed, the URI value for the 'cursor' property was reviewed by the group
(along with counters), and it was decided that they should be in, and thus
should be in the next version of the draft.

Thanks for pointing this out,

Tantek
Received on Monday, 5 August 2002 20:28:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:15 GMT