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

Re: [CSS21] Unclear status of different versions

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 15:11:23 +0000 (UTC)
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0508291505010.7013@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Chris Lilley wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> More to the point, it says that implementations may refer to the 
>> original 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 correspond to a 'Rescinded Recommendation' 
> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#rec-rescind

The document would still exist, if implementations needed to refer to 
something. However, the entire point of removing the features is that 
nobody had an interoperable implementation and the feature was therefore 
not doing much good in the spec in the first place.


> > Your comment did not seem to include a specific request, but please 
> > let us know if the above explanations are satisfactory. If they are 
> > not, please 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 referred to' and 'Rescinded' or as you said, "replaced" and "abandoned" 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.

In that case I don't really understand what it is you are asking for. We 
do not see a contradiction.


> 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.

As I have explained, we do not see the contradiction.


> In addition, as a specific request, please use 
> terms drawn from the W3C Process when defining relationships between 
> documents rather than inventing new ones.

Could you point us to the exact terms you would like us to use? The 
official terms I could find were "edition" and "rescinded", neither of 
which, per W3C process, can be used in this situation.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 29 August 2005 15:11:33 GMT

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