- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 08:43:05 +0000 (GMT)
- To: www-style@w3.org
> That is only the case because CSS lacks a standard method of version > control (for lack of the proper term) -- the CSS equivalent of a doctype > declaration. Isn't that the case? These problems are not to do with a scalar version. They are the result of partial implementations, faulty implementations with large market share, and designers who never read and understand source documents, so fail to understand that certain things are deliberately not specified, in order to allow different implementation approaches, but then expect everyone else to follow the market leader. The result is that a browser will typically be at an implementation extension level in one area, CSS2 in another, CSS3 in yet another, CSS1 elswhere, broken in places, technically compliant but constrained by display technology in such a way as not to be able to meet designer expectations, in places, etc. There are no complete CSS 2 implementations, and probably no complete CSS 2.1 ones. Also, extremely few HTML documents have valid doctypes, and, for most well formed HTML it is not possible to specify one because the browser developers don't publish DTDs for their extensions, but most commercial HTML uses those extensions. That suggests that the presence of version information would be so unreliable as to be useless.
Received on Sunday, 9 January 2005 13:33:57 UTC