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

Re: Styling conflict

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 12:19:38 +0100
Message-ID: <1529741059.20041119121938@w3.org>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, www-style@w3.org

On Thursday, November 18, 2004, 11:56:12 PM, Ian wrote:

IH> Since this thread is now about CSS and not SVG, I have shunted it over to
IH> www-style. It comes from www-svg originally.

Yes, good idea.

IH> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Chris Lilley wrote:
>>> This is handled in the CSS2.0 errata [1], which agree with CSS2.1.  So
>>> there's no ambiguity at this point, as far as I can see.
>> Once they become normative, which is done by publishing a second 
>> edition; which the CSS WG does not plan to do since CSS 2.1 is the 
>> replacement, so CSS2 is abandoned. Hence the problem.

IH> CSS2.1 _is_ the second edition. That's what the ".1" bit means. It's short
IH> for "CSS Level 2 Revision 1".

That is one possible interpretation. Its possibly a good interpretation.
If it *is* the intent - and contrary opinions were expressed on this
exact point in the past couple of years - then the confusing text quoted
below should be revised:

"CSS 2.1 builds on CSS2 [CSS2] which builds on CSS1 [CSS1]."

which makes it sound like CSS 1 exists and you can use that, CSS 2 exists
and you can use that, CSS 2.1 exists and you can use that... after all,
CSS 2 becoming a Rec did not result in CSS 1 being withdrawn.

Its not at all clear from the SotD that CSS 2.1 is a subset of CSS 2 and
that the rest of CSS2 is removed, put back to working draft. If that is
the intent, please state this clearly and unambiguously in the Status of
this Document. I propose the following text to make that clear:

"CSS 2.1 is derived from and is intended to replace CSS2. Some parts of CSS2
are unchanged in CSS 2.1, some parts have been altered, and some parts
removed. The removed portions may be used in a future CSS3
specification. Once CSS 2.1 becomes a W3C Recommendation, it is the
intention of the CSS Working Group to move CSS 2 to Rescinded status."

That text should have been in the Last Call, to alert those Working
Groups who have a dependency on CSS 2 that CSS2 is going away. As it is,
there are unsatisfied dependencies.

IH> This is quite clearly stated right at the top of the spec:

IH> # Cascading Style Sheets, level 2 revision 1
IH> # CSS 2.1 Specification
IH>  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/

The normal W3C terminology to indicate that would be "Cascading Style
Sheets, level 2, Second Edition".

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Friday, 19 November 2004 11:19:39 UTC

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