W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2009

Re: Status of CSS 2.1 and Print Profiles

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 22:15:22 -0700
Message-ID: <4AA5E86A.1080002@inkedblade.net>
To: Toby Nixon <Toby.Nixon@microsoft.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Toby Nixon wrote:
> Dear W3C CSS WG:
> 
> UPnP Forum has a dependency on CSS 2.1, XHTML-Print, CSS Print Profile, 
> and CSS Paged Media Module. These specifications must be W3C 
> Recommendations before the UPnP Print Enhanced Device Control Protocol 
> specification can be submitted to ISO/IEC for standardization.
> 
> I have been asked to present an update on the progress of 
> standardization of CSS 2.1 at the upcoming UPnP Forum Steering Committee 
> meeting on September 3. Could you direct me to a summary of the status 
> of CSS 2.1, or answer a couple of specific questions?
> 
> My understanding is that CSS 2.1 was updated and re-entered W3C 
> Candidate Recommendation Status on April 23, 2009. It was to remain in 
> CR status at least until July 23, 2009. Is that correct? Is it still at 
> CR today? Any estimate of when CSS 2.1 will be moved to Proposed 
> Recommendation status?

Yes, CSS2.1 is still CR. We have no realistic estimate of when it will be
moved to Proposed Recommendation status.

> My understanding is that the major items holding up CSS 2.1 progress 
> have been creation of interoperable implementations and creation of test 
> suites. Do those continue to be issues for progress of CSS 2.1?

Yes, that is exactly the holdup for CSS 2.1. The spec is quite stable,
and we're mostly maintaining it via an errata-like process at this point.
But to become a full W3C Recommendation it does need a test suite and
two interoperable implementations, and we don't have those yet. (And, like
pretty much anything else in the software world, people do keep finding
errors in the spec.)

Note that these testing and implementation requirements did not exist
when earlier CSS specifications were published as W3C Recommendations,
so the state difference should not be taken to mean that CSS2.1 is less
mature than the original CSS Level 2 Recommendation.

Sorry for the late response, btw.

~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2009 05:16:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:21 GMT