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

Re: [CSS21] Unclear status of different versions

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:42:33 +0200
Message-ID: <43156D79.1070402@disruptive-innovations.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org, w3c-css-wg@w3.org

fantasai wrote:

> I think I agree with Chris that the relationship between CSS2.1
> and CSS2 and the status of CSS2 isn't very clear. The problem with
> 3 is that only the CSS working group seems to understand what 3
> really means. Afaict, the CSS working group wants to effectively
> rescind most of the CSS2 spec in favor of CSS2.1. However, a few
> parts still need to be used as references for features left out
> of CSS2.1 until the relevant CSS3 modules have been completed,
> so the spec can't be officially rescinded.

Sorry, but I could not help but laugh when I read your message.
That's exactly my complaint since the CSS WG has started the 2.1 effort.

CSS 2 is a REC. A REC is not something that can be obsoleted just because
the CSS WG decided to build a 2.1. Whatever is the future of CSS, CSS 2
still stands. And vendors _can_ decide to implement some totally
unimplemented parts of it (as of today) and claim they are conformant to
CSS. **WHATEVER** you think of the quality of specs released before the
implementation criterium, it *IS* a REC. We are not playing on words here,
we're working in a standardization body, where words and punctuation DO
matter. A REC is a REC. The fact that the two interoperable implems criterium
did not exist at the time of CSS 2 does not turn that spec into an irrelevant
or archaic specification. Your opinion here is irrelevant. It's a REC, period.

Furthermore, CSS 3 will also have to pass the 2 interop implems criterium.
So it will be, of course, based on 2.1. So the release of CSS 3
modules will have no effect, no impact _at all_ on unimplemented parts of
CSS 2 that were not acknowledged for 2.1.

Again, CSS 2 still stands. And because of that, 2.1 is not a revision of
2. Unless CSS 2.1 has a new header section "Obsoletes: CSS 2 Rec".

I still think it's highly time to drop our CSS "levels" and move to
CSS "versions". Levels become counter-productive.

</Daniel>
Received on Wednesday, 31 August 2005 08:42:47 GMT

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