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

Re: The Progress of CSS

From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 22:17:33 -0400
Message-ID: <abd6c8010507021917726906e5@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

On 7/1/05, Christopher Aillon <caillon@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> On 07/01/2005 04:34 PM, Kris@meridian-ds.com wrote:
> 
> >Adam, your point is well taken.  But a couple points back at ya.
> >
> >The date carried by CSS1 is "W3C Recommendation 17 Dec 1996, revised 11 Jan
> >1999"  That's a 2 year process from 1, to 2.1... this is developement, not
> >implementation.  Again if we factor in IE's stagnateness for the last 4ish
> >years, all these numbers make a bit more sense.
> >
> >As an addendum to that the date carried by CSS3 is "W3C Working Draft, 23
> >May 2001".
> >
> >What's this say to me?  What is says is that the Consortium has multiple
> >balls rolling at once.  They're offering the 3rd party developers (web
> >browsers) the ability to implement "versions" all at once.  A web browser
> >could advertise itself CSS 2.1 compatable, and we'd all understand what
> >that meant.  Again, this has a LOT more to do with 3rd party implementation
> >than it does initial development.
> >
> >I kinda feel we're jumping the gun here.  Just because it's taken a while
> >to this point, doesn't mean it will continue to be abnormally long.  We
> >just need to get all the 3rd party players to play nice.
> >
> Most of them already are trying to, with a notable exception or two.
> Additionally, a long time in between revisions is not necessarily a bad
> thing.  While it does not bring anything new to the table, it does
> "stabilize" the specification, and while there are things that can be
> improved, it is a fairly decent specification which many people are
> implementing and using.  It gives vendors something to target.  Were we
> up to CSS Level 6 or 7 or so by now, we'd potentially run the risk of
> vendors supporting varying amounts of each specification, which might
> have further fragmented the web.

It took less than 2 years to completely port .Net 1.0 over to Linux.
Could it possibly be that CSS is just a might too complex or badly
architected?

I actually had a project where I wrote ASP.Net code for Linux that ran
from Apache. Now why was it easier for Open Source people to write an
entire platform for code execution including a compiler than to write
a browser that fully supported CSS 1.0? Me wonder.

Orion Adrian
Received on Sunday, 3 July 2005 02:17:36 GMT

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