W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2011

Re: [CSS21][12.5.1 The 'list-style-type' property] decimal-leading-zero clarification

From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 11:11:02 +0100
Message-ID: <4ED752B6.4030200@kozea.fr>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org
Le 01/12/2011 00:23, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
 >> So when Lists 3 is ready, it will make the matching parts of CSS 2.1
 >> >  obsolete and these parts won’t get corrections or clarifications?
 > Yes, unless there's something obviously wrong or confusing in 2.1.

So when I find something unclear or under-specified in 2.1, it’s not 
worth reporting unless it’s really wrong as it will not get corrected?

>> >  When parts of a spec is obsolete, should it be marked as such with a link to
>> >  the new spec?
> We haven't generally done so with 2.1.  As I said above, implementors
> are expected to be reading the most updated version of the specs.
> This can be seen somewhat easily by looking at
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/, and will be even easier once we get the new
> Current Work page back up, which lists all the specs by maturity
> level.

I guess that this Current Work page will also list which specs are 
relevant or not? I was gonna use css3-content as an example but I just 
saw that the editor’s draft has a big red obsoletion notice. However the 
current version has no such warning. Nothing other that its age (2003) 
shows that it is any less relevant than Lists 3 as they have the same 
status (Working Draft).

Also, most CSS3 modules are much bigger than the matching parts of CSS 
2.1. As the implementer of WeasyPrint, I try to keep some sanity and 
start by only implementing 2.1. I only look at parts of CSS3 as I need 
them. (eg. I have @page { size: … } but not the rest of Paged Media yet.)

Anyway thanks for your answers.
-- 
Simon Sapin
Received on Thursday, 1 December 2011 10:11:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:47 GMT