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

Re: Levels and modular structure

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 09:45:02 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBZQUwZvvAKjrBtGpQCeoOZ+St+1jATG0KnYWo_GzmgFw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
Cc: W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:22 AM, Christoph Päper
<christoph.paeper@crissov.de> wrote:
> Tab Atkins Jr.:
>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Christoph Päper
>>> It means that modules have to normatively reference all (or nothing) of CSS level 2 (revision 1). Accordingly, conforming implementations of such a module would have to support CSS 2.1 completely.
>>
>> I must ask again: why is that a problem?  That's *intended*.
>
> It would be fine if CSS 2.1 was equal to the minimal core of CSS 3 modules (Syntax, Selectors, Values …). It is not. It contains more than what every CSS implementation absolutely needs to support.
>
> Actually, I even believe that it sometimes can be useful to retroactively develop lower-level modules. That means you start with “CSS Fancy module level 3”, but later realize that it has a core subset which would be enough for some products to support, so you put that in a level 1 or 2 version.
>
> If you think that modules are just there to make the life of specification writers easier, not to give implementers some choices, the above of course would make no sense to you.

Ah, yes, that explains why we're talking past each other.  Yes,
modules are there purely to make specifying and reading easier.  With
a few obvious exceptions (the "XXX Profile" specs), implementors are
expected to implement everything.

~TJ
Received on Saturday, 19 November 2011 17:45:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:46 GMT