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

Re: [CSS21] Unclear status of different versions

From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:02:03 -0400
Message-ID: <abd6c80105083019027ec0e3d8@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

On 8/30/05, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> 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 Or you could ask for CSS2 to be rescinded, if you (rather, the CS WG)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.

Is not 2.1 really 3 and 3 really 4? I see 2.1 as a new version of CSS.
Admittedly 2 was never implemented, but does that matter in terms of
numbering them?

-- 

Orion Adrian
Received on Wednesday, 31 August 2005 02:02:19 GMT

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