W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2005

Re: [CSS21] Proof of CSS 2.1 / CSS 2.0

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:42:50 +0000 (UTC)
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0508240135160.21639@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Karl Dubost wrote:
> 
> So if I follow the CSS WG.
>     1. CSS 2.1 is a revision of CSS 2

Right.


>     2. CSS doesn't need versioning because it's a full set of technologies
> without compatibilities version

I have no idea what that means.

CSS doesn't need versioning because there is no real use case for 
versioning in CSS. (At least, I haven't yet seen one.) If you know of a 
use case, please explain it (and specifically, explain what the 
conformance criteria related to that versioning scheme would be).


>     3. CSS 2.1 will drop some features of CSS 2 which are not implemented.

Some features, such as display:marker, have been removed, yes. This has no 
effect on either implementors, authors, or users, since the features were 
never implemented and never used.


> but I'm told so in this thread
>     - That there are huge differences between CSS 2 and CSS 2.1

There were many fixes to CSS2, yes. CSS 2.1 is a comprehensive revision 
that fixes literally hundreds (if not thousands) of issues that have been 
raised over the years.


>     - That it is not already demonstrated that some features of CSS 2 are not
> implemented (which was the reason to drop them).

It has been demonstrated, e.g. in adhoc testing during F2F meetings and 
telecons, and in mails to the CSS lists. What hasn't been done is nobody 
has written a report on it (which is what I understood you were asking 
for). Writing such a report would be a massive undertaking, effectively 
summarising the CSSWG's activities for the past four years.


> I'm a bit confused. There's something not logical. I may have missed a 
> step.

Hopefully the above clarifies the situation. Please explain what it is 
that you do not think follows, if not.


> But the thread tends to confirm that the other issue about versioning 
> that the CDF WG raised, and that I have raised is important.

Did you reply to Bert's answer to your issue? I did not see a response.

Cheers,
-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2005 01:43:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:40 GMT