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

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

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:57:56 +0000 (UTC)
To: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0506301052540.7173@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Orion Adrian wrote:
> Avalong is a slightly different beast. It's also a 1.0 release. I expect 
> major new specs to take a long time, but I don't expect incremental 
> updates or feature revisions to take that long. Office comes out with a 
> new version every 1-3 years. While I agree that Microsoft could spend 
> more time with it's customers doing usability research, I still find 
> their process preferable.
> Remember GDI/GDI+ didn't exactly sit around while Avalon was in the 
> works.

CSS hasn't been sitting around either. We've resolved well over 900 issues 
in CSS2 since 1998. CSS2.1 just went to last call again, with the latest 
set of revisions. W3C version numbering is a little weird, but if we were 
to follow traditional numbering styles I suppose CSS would be at CSS 2.5 
(incrementing by .1 for each "minor" revision published since CSS2 REC).

We've also published plenty of other things, e.g. CSS3 Color (rgba(), 
opacity) and CSS3 Selectors (:nth-child, etc). Browsers other than 
Microsoft's have been slowly but surely implementing all of these.

You have to compare apples to apples. Big changes will take a decade. 
Small changes are occuring all the time.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 30 June 2005 10:58:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:18 UTC