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

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

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:46:02 -0400
Message-Id: <C5F9D0F9-C099-4848-AA02-E4BBBD5938C9@w3.org>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>


Le 2005-08-23 à 21:42, Ian Hickson a écrit :
>>     2. CSS doesn't need versioning because it's a full set of  
>> technologies
>> without compatibilities version
>
> I have no idea what that means.

Yes ;) I should stop writing when it's too late and I have only one  
eye open ;)

     2. CSS doesn't need versioning because it's a full set of  
features remaining compatible. (without incompatibilities in time).

> 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).

I will come with a few cases today. The CSS validator is one of them,  
but I guess it will be withdrawn by the WG as a real use case. So  
I'll try to show you in terms of interactions between browsers and  
authors (and in business environment like Web design agency).

To be sure we are talking about the same thing

http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/keyword/All/?keywords=deprecated
http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/keyword/All/?keywords=obsolete

Calling a term obsolete means that it has not to be supported  
anymore. It doesn't exist from an implementation point of view.


>>     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.

     Just note, that it's the "proof" that I am requesting.

>> 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.

     OK so the CSS WG admits it's a complete different thing. Which  
was not the initial comment about versioning, yet the group is saying  
that no versioning has to be put in place.


>>     - 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.

Yes each time, you drop something from a specification it's good to  
see why.
What are the reason behind the choice. Also when something is dropped  
and reappear in a later version (ooops not it's not version, how do I  
call that?)

>> 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.

     You are saying in mail that the technology is heavily versioned  
but that versioning mechanism is useless.


>> 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.

Not yet :)) on my todo pile.



-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2005 14:46:29 GMT

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