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 17:35:47 +0200
Message-ID: <864751187.20050829173547@w3.org>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

On Monday, August 29, 2005, 5:11:23 PM, Ian wrote:

IH> 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 correspond to a 'Rescinded Recommendation' 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

IH> The document would still exist, if implementations needed to refer to 
IH> something.

Actually no - it would dissapear from the TR page and the latest dated
version would state that it was Rescinded.

IH> However, the entire point of removing the features is that 
IH> nobody had an interoperable implementation and the feature was therefore
IH> not doing much good in the spec in the first place.

I was not aware that the CSS WG had tested XSL implementations for
interoperability. But perhaps i misunderstand what you mean here.

>> > 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 referred to' and 'Rescinded' or as you said, "replaced" and "abandoned" 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.

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

Perhaps someone else could respond, who can see that 'still recommended'
and 'rescinded, withdrawn, abandonded' are not compatible terms.

>> 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.

IH> 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.

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 official terms I could find were "edition" and "rescinded", neither of 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

My point exactly. If you want to propose a change to the W3C Process, I
can point you to the list for such proposals. However, it would be
simpler and quicker to use an existing term.

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Monday, 29 August 2005 15:35:57 UTC

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