CSS 2.1 _is_ CSS2. That is the line WG members/authors have been taking. As such, I believe that CSS2.1 is supposed not to cause any of the difficult conflicts that your generalisation implies. The properties which have been dropped are, I believe, mostly unimplemented. I'm sure there are some which have made it into some fringe implementation, but on the whole, anything removed shouldn't damage the spec or cause any conflicts. There is also no problem with an implementation supporting an old CSS2 property that is no-longer specified, it is simply nolonger required for CSS Level 2 conformance. If you've got specific cases where CSS2.1 conflicting with CSS2 could be a real problem, I'd suggest you provide information about those individual cases so they can be addressed. I have no idea how the WG intends to resolve such conflicts, but my understanding is that there probably shouldn't be any. On 7/8/05, Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@tu-clausthal.de> wrote: > > Karl Dubost: > > There's no way in CSS to have a versioning information. > > I have always thought CSS 2.1 should instead be three more or less > separate things: > > - Errata => CSS 2.0 Second Edition > - Extensions => CSS 2.1 (based upon 2.0 SE) > - Profile/Subset of CSS 2.1 > > We would also have had thrown 'box-sizing' into CSS 2.1 and then turned > our attention to the CSS3 modules. > > -- http://ben-ward.co.ukReceived on Friday, 8 July 2005 10:04:15 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:39 GMT