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

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

From: David Latapie <david@empyree.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:32:00 +0100
To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070131133200859878.4f1e52f9@empyree.org>
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 07:54:48 +0000 (GMT), David Woolley wrote:
> 
> [ 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.

If I understood the conversation correctly:

1. Forget about Wikipedia. Even with the best good will (and we have 
it), long validity is not attainable. This is what administrators say 
to people who would like to give some (objective) information about 
themselves -- they may use the discussions but are encouraged not to 
edit their own page.
I'm pretty sure we can get a high quality article there but to enforce 
it is out of question. It is against the Wikipedia philosophy (if not 
policy)


2. Think about Wikibooks (wikibooks.org, 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikibooks)

a. The two projects are l linked together. Wikibooks is part of 
Wikimedia

b. Enforcing something is much easier
--- first because there much less people interested and they tend to be 
more serious (as an average; there is a *lot* a excellent Wikipedists, 
but there is just to much not-to-good Wikipedists to lower the average, 
contrary to Wikibooks--simple scaling effect). This is what you were 
talking about on rigour.
--- second because Wikibooks are easier to enforce. They can even be 
considered finished 
(http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Featured_books)

c. Wikibook is more adapted to references, manuals... A complete and 
accurate review of the CSS support would fit in the "book" category 
better the "article" one. The way I see it, it could start as an annex 
to “CSS programming” <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/CSS_Programming>

Your best bet would be:
1. To contact “CSS programming” contributors 
(<http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=CSS_Programming&limit=500&action=history>) 
to tell them about the project. This is more a matter of courtesy than 
mandatory

2. To start an annex. It could be 
CSS_Programming/Reference/CSS_Support
CSS_Programming/Reference/CSS_Support/Presto
CSS_Programming/Reference/CSS_Support/Gecko
...

Or 
CSS_Programming/Reference/CSS_Support
CSS_Programming/Reference/CSS_Support/Screen
CSS_Programming/Reference/CSS_Support/Print
...

Or
CSS_Programming/Reference/CSS_Support
CSS_Programming/Reference/CSS_Support/Media/Screen
CSS_Programming/Reference/CSS_Support/Media/Print
CSS_Programming/Reference/CSS_Support/Engine/Presto
CSS_Programming/Reference/CSS_Support/Engine/Gecko
...

Wiktionary FR has the "Annexes:" namespace. I can't find anything 
similar in Wiktionary EN or Wikibooks FR or EN. Is there anyone else 
from Wikimedia there to check this?
-- 
</david_latapie>             U+0F00
http://blog.empyree.org/en (English)
http://blog.empyree.org/fr (Français)
http://blog.empyree.org/sl (Slovenščino)
Received on Wednesday, 31 January 2007 12:32:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:49 GMT