Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jun/0476.html is the > original comment. It states the problem quite clearly and offers a so- > lution that's also quite clear. There is nothing about backward compa- > tibility in there, so you don't seem to have followed the thread very > well. Since then, Glenn has gone on to make multiple arguments and suggestions, sometimes claiming backwards compatibility as his concern and sometimes forwards compatibility. His most recent argument has been that certain technical telecommunications specs reference early drafts of css-fonts, and hence should not be considered non-conformant if their implementation doesn't end up matching the final recommendation. Does that make sense to anyone? JHReceived on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 17:53:09 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:47 UTC