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

Re: [CSS21] Unclear status of different versions

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:00:37 +0200
Message-ID: <16110703685.20050829170037@w3.org>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

On Sunday, August 28, 2005, 6:44:21 PM, Ian wrote:

IH> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Chris Lilley wrote:
>> CSS 2.1 is said to be both a development from CSS 2.0 (and CSS 1.0) and 
>> a replacement for CSS 2.0;

IH> CSS2.x is an extension of the CSS1 specification and CSS2.1 is a revision
IH> of the original CSS2 specification. Thus, indeed, CSS2.1 is a development
IH> from both CSS2 and CSS1.

IH> CSS2.1 is a revision of the original CSS2 specification; a new "edition"
IH> (although W3C process IIRC prevents us from calling it that since some 
IH> normative requirements changed). Thus it does indeed replace the original
IH> CSS2 specification.

Thus, please do not use the term "edition" and please use terms defined
by W3C Process.

>> later it is described as a partial replacement for CSS2.0, with removed 
>> features being defined in CSS2; it is also stated that such features may 
>> move into CSS3.

IH> More to the point, it says that implementations may refer to the original
IH> CSS2 spec for the definitions of the removed features.

That would not be possible, since the CSS2 specification would be
"replaced" and "abandoned" (your words, both from this email). Returning
once again to the terms defined in the W3C Process, that would
correspond to a 'Rescinded Recommendation'

>> Will CSS 1.0 and 2.0 continue to be maintained, with eratta, or are they 
>> abandoned?

IH> They are abandoned. CSS2's errata getting too long was the main reason for
IH> CSS2.1 to be created; the few features that were removed had no errata to
IH> my knowledge, and are now being maintained in CSS3 (the main such feature,
IH> namely @font-face, is covered by a CSS3 spec for which you are the 
IH> editor). CSS Level 1 is to be defined by the profile parts of the CSS3 
IH> modules; the main market for CSS Level 1 is mobile devices, and the CSS 
IH> Mobile Profile has taken that role now.

>> In addition, later the spec talks of removing features from CSS2:
>>   Removing CSS2 features that will be obsoleted by CSS3, thus
>>   encouraging adoption of the proposed CSS3 features in their place.

IH> This refers to display: marker, which is indeed obsoleted (never 
IH> implemented, bad design, replaced by the significantly better ::marker in
IH> CSS3). I don't think there were any others, but I may be wrong. The same
IH> would apply to them if there are any.

IH> Your comment did not seem to include a specific request, but please let us
IH> know if the above explanations are satisfactory. If they are not, please
IH> let us know exactly what would be.

Your comments, while helpful expansions of the existing text and useful
explanations of intent, still leave CSS2 in both a 'stable Rec to be
referred to' and 'Rescinded' or as you said, "replaced" and "abandoned"
status. The inherent contradiction thus remains, so the response is not
yet satisfactory.

You are correct that the original comment did not request specific
action; it merely pointed out that several parts of the specification
contradicted one another (which seemed self evidently to be a request to
fix that!).

The specific request is, therefore, in general, to not have
any part of the specification contradict another part and in particular,
to not have contradictory information regarding the status of previous
versions/levels/editions. In addition, as a specific request, please use
terms drawn from the W3C Process when defining relationships between
documents rather than inventing new ones.

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Monday, 29 August 2005 15:00:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:20 UTC