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

Re: CSS is doomed (10 years per version ?!?)

From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 15:48:23 +0200
Message-ID: <42C549A7.5030603@students.cs.uu.nl>
To: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

Orion Adrian wrote:

>1) The specs take too long to reach the public. The iterative design
>process doesn't really work when you've got 10 years between start and
>implementation.
>  
>
Now you’re twisting things to what was not originally said. The example 
I gave in the FAQ had only 5 years between start and implementation. 
User adoption alone counted for 5 years, and such a user adoption rate 
will be true for both standards and proprietary technologies. Probably 
even more for the latter, as they often require an OS upgrade (IE7 
requires XP, XAML requires Longhorn) and there are no other alternatives 
available. Standards do have alternatives. Want transparent PNGs on web 
pages but don’t have XP? Then use Mozilla. Not getting security updates 
for your browser anymore because your OS is deemed outdated? Then use Opera.

Also, more optimistic scenarios are possible, e.g. when the most common 
browser IE puts more effort in supporting the W3C specifications instead 
of own proprietary alternatives. Specification could take 1 year instead 
of two, and common browser adoption could take two. For example.

>Huh? No, I'm not for replacing languages for the sake of doing so. I'm
>for splitting and merging languages when it will improve the overall
>experience. If layout doesn't work well from the persepective of CSS,
>then move it out. If some other language's features make sense to be
>included, merge them. I'm for the optimal number of languages, not for
>replacement at a whim.
>  
>
I disagree that layout doesn’t work well from the perspective of CSS.

>The older version however is already implemented. You don't even
>really have to maintain it, except for security since you want it to
>work exactly as it's always worked.
>  
>
That is under the assumption that no new user agents do emerge, which I 
think is quite a limited view. Currently, writing an HTML UA is already 
a tremendous effort because of all the additional complications that 
Standards / Quirks modes and tag soup brings along (basically also 
different ‘versions’). Let’s not make that worse for XML + CSS UAs.


~Grauw

-- 
Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.
Received on Friday, 1 July 2005 13:48:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:39 GMT