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: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 03:49:17 +0200
Message-ID: <14410394516.20050831034917@w3.org>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

On Tuesday, August 30, 2005, 9:48:13 PM, Ian wrote:

IH> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Chris Lilley wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Very well. I shall forward your request that we rescind the original 
>>> revision of CSS2 to the working group for more detailed discussion.
>> 
>> You mentioned something earlier about the wisdom of putting words in 
>> another's mouth?

IH> Chris, the three options are:

IH>  1. Call CSS 2.1 a new edition of the original CSS2.

IH>  2. Rescind the original CSS2.

IH>  3. Do what the CSS working group are doing today.

IH> You said you didn't want 3.

If 3 was clearer, perhaps.

IH> We can't do 1, because we have made normative
IH> changes.

Areed.

IH>  Yet you were requiring that we do either 1 or 2. That leaves 2.

IH> Hence, my conclusion that you were asking for 2.

That seemed to be what "abandoned" was closest to. And yet, it raised
issues about other specs that reference CSS 2.

IH> Since apparently that _isn't_ what you are asking, I once again request 
IH> you to please re-explain what it is that the CDF and SVG working groups 
IH> are asking for in this issue.

In fact, its the CSS WG who has to explain to the Director what they are
planning to do and how the different levels/versions/models/whatever
relate to each other, next time they make a document transition request.

Once again, its a simple request for clarity. I would prefer that you
don't invent a new category of half-recommended sort-or-obsoleted,
"abandoned but other specs can still point to it".

But if you are unable to be clearer about CSS2 and CSS1, then I guess your
request for advancement will need to go forward with a request for such
a category.

Or you could ask for CSS2 to be rescinded, if you (rather, the CS WG)
feels that is best, provided there is some plan for what to do about
specs that reference CSS2 now or plan to in the future.

-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Wednesday, 31 August 2005 01:49:29 GMT

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