Re: [CSS21] Section 15.2

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

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.

Regards,
Craig

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