W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2004

RE: LC Comment - Script & Progressive Rendering / Multiple Pages

From: Mark Moore <mark.moore@notlimited.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 15:41:05 -0800
To: <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E1CZe7L-0000ID-8s@frink.w3.org>

A (hopefully) simple compromise would be to clearly mark the CSS2 spec as
superseded by CSS2.1.  RFC's have used this technique quite successfully.
The older documents remain available, but the superseding RFC is clearly
identified at the top.

This modification of CSS2 could be done using the same mechanism and in the
same revision cycle Jim Ley (possibly?), or someone else uses to remove the
"proposed errata" from the existing document.  


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf
> Of Adam Kuehn
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 3:03 PM
> To: Ian Hickson; Jim Ley
> Cc: www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: LC Comment - Script & Progressive Rendering / Multiple Pages
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> >CSS2 may well be rescinded once CSS2.1 reaches REC, that's still being
> >considered. The biggest problem with doing that is that documents
> >normatively refer to CSS2, and that some of the features in CSS2 are not
> >in CSS2.1 and the equivalent CSS3 drafts have not been published yet.
> >Therefore rescinding the spec would result in dangling pointers which
> >would require other specs to be rereleased causing a ripple effect. It
> >certainly is the intent of the CSS working group that CSS2.1 replace CSS2
> >as far as the normative definition of CSS Level 2 goes.
> If the intent of the CSS working group is that CSS2.1 replaces CSS2
> (and that intent does, indeed, seem quite clear - indeed, can the 2.1
> spec reasonably be read any other way?), then it is completely
> obvious that the CSS2 spec should be rescinded.  The downside you
> mention is dangling pointers.  However, the alternative to that evil
> is the far worse evil of outright incorrect pointers.  If CSS2 is no
> longer intended to be normative, then normative pointers *need* to be
> updated.  Bite the bullet.
> Just my opinion, of course.
> --
> -Adam Kuehn
Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2004 23:42:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:16 UTC