- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 22:56:53 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Jim Ley wrote: > > It would really help if this was clear, the CSS WG are obligated to > track errata, and just saying "this is no longer maintained" I don't > think achieves that. With CSS 2.1 now so far advanced I think it would > be an excellent idea to revisit this document, removing those "proposed > errata" bits which are attempting to "clarify into correctness", they're > unneccessary now. Are you volunteering? The CSS working group members consider CSS2.1 to be fulfilling the role of CSS2's errata, and frankly we do not have the time to maintain both. > > You may not like the way it is being done, but the fact is that the > > CSS working group _is_ doing something about the issues in CSS2 > > Oh no, sorry if you took it that way, I fully support how the CSS WG > have worked on sorting out the CSS2 mess, I was merely highlighting how > errata's are badly used in the W3, they either do not exist at all, or > do not exist in anything but not-maintained and proposed states. The > actual result of CSS 2.1 is a very good, the problem is that the CSS2 > mess is still there. Yes, it's unclear exactly how to handle this. Any suggestions for alternatives to rescinding the spec (which I doubt we'll be able to do for the reasons I mentioned, sadly) are welcome. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2004 22:56:59 UTC