Tantek Çelik wrote: > On 5/5/02 11:23 AM, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: >> This prevents chaos as caused by IE4's 'position' implementation, which was >> based on a draft which changed before CSS2 reached PR stage, and meant that >> documents written for IE4 totally broke on compliant implementations. This is, >> in fact, one of the main events that spurred on these guidelines. > > Ian, please do not attempt to rewrite history that occurred well before you > were even involved with CSS. Sorry, I was trying to give it accurately -- I certainly didn't mean to criticize Microsoft or the WG or the editors or anyone, if that's how you interpreted my comments. > IE4 implemented position (and top, left) as agreed and designed by the CSS > WG in the last WD-positioning draft. ...which is what I said. > It is more correct to say that mistakes like this in CSS2 are what spurred > the CR exit criteria that we have for Selectors, CSS Mobile Profile 1.0, and > AFAIAC, every other CR draft that the CSS WG will produce. Indeed, the 'position' issue also spurred on the CR stage. -- Ian Hickson ``The inability of a user agent to implement part of this specification due to the limitations of a particular device (e.g., non interactive user agents will probably not implement dynamic pseudo-classes because they make no sense without interactivity) does not imply non-conformance.'' -- Selectors, Sec13Received on Sunday, 5 May 2002 21:14:35 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:14 GMT