W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2007

Re: Maintained matrix of CSS properties v. browsers/rendering engines ?

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 07:54:48 +0000 (GMT)
Message-Id: <200701310754.l0V7smG03715@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: www-style@w3.org

[ Wikipedia inclusion criteria ]

> You mean like links to implementation reports based on the CSS test 
> suites?  ;)  That's what should really happen, imo.

Provided that those reports were on a web page under strong W3C, or WHATWG
editorial control, and the links had an indefinite expectation of validity
(say a reasonable expectation of 10 years and no forecast limit).

The preference is actually for books from non-vanity publishers and
peer reviewed journal articles, because these get well reviewed and
are likely to be obtainable in the long run.

Presence on a web site makes it easier for other people to verify the
source, but also tends to make sources more transient.

You could get away with slightly lower requirements if there is no
human interpretation involved.  However, in my view, simply pointing
to the test suite and saying run it yourself, wouldn't be enough.

Basically, the value of an expert is in knowing where the good sources
are, rather than in knowing the facts.  The main advantage of knowing
the facts is that they can spot when other people don't have a source or
have a bad one.  (Ideally, every potentially contentious point should
be identifiable with one of the listed references, but, especially in
popular technology, popular culture, politics and religion, it is very
difficult to get contributors to use such rigour.)
Received on Wednesday, 31 January 2007 07:55:04 UTC

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