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

Re: [CSS21] Section 15.2

From: Craig Northway <craign@cisra.canon.com.au>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 08:14:13 +1000
Message-ID: <43123735.1050408@cisra.canon.com.au>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

Hi Ian,

Ian Hickson wrote:

>As previously mentioned, the specification is written so as to define the 
>processing model, a description of how an implementation of CSS acts. It 
>would thus be inappropriate to litter the specification with RFC2119 
>terms, especially since it is unclear how the specification could be 
>phrased if that kind of conformance model was adopted (the 8.3.1 section 
>being a canonical example of something that would be nigh on impossible 
>to specify in that way).
>Please let us know if this satisfies your request,
I don't think this is the best way to write the specification, but I 
will consider my comments on conformance statements, this comments, 
Section 4.1.1, Section 4.1.1(b) and Section 6.1.2 as satisified.

I would prefer if the specification were more clear surrounding the 
parts of the model that are required and optional. I believe this would 
be possible by indicating conformance closer to the model description 
rather than right at the start of the specification.

Received on Sunday, 28 August 2005 22:15:00 GMT

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