W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator-css@w3.org > December 2006

Re: Bug Report: font-size-adjust

From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:35:45 +0200 (EET)
To: CSS validator list <www-validator-css@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0612181426020.12047@mustatilhi.cs.tut.fi>

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, olivier Thereaux wrote:

> The CSS working group considers that CSS2.1 includes errata for CSS2, and as 
> such, stylesheets that are invalid when checking against 2.1 are invalid 
> CSS2.

I almost refrained from commenting on the announcement, which referred to 
CSS 2.1, which itself (the CSS 2.1 draft) says that it is improper to cite 
it as other than "work in progress". However, this notice is far too 
confused and confusing.

The so-called "errata for CSS2" is a very mixed collection of notes 
ranging from minor typo fixes to vague comments saying that something 
should perhaps be done to something. It's not even close to a draft 
surrogate for a _specification_.

Saying that a group "considers" that their draft "includes errata for 
CSS2" is false as a descriptive statement (it does not, include the 
errata, of course) and absurd as a prescriptive or interpretional 
statement, especially it is means that the CSS 2.1 draft has the power of 
changing the content of the CSS 2.0 specification.

> My own opinion on the matter notwithstanding, I suggest you talk to 
> www-style if you disagree with that stance.

Shouldn't the "CSS Validator" be based on some objective, published, 
stable criteria, or at least be clearly announced as a lint-type heuristic 
checker (which contains some rigorousness as well)? I don't think that 
various individuals' discussions in an informal open mailing list are the 
way to solve fundamental unstability and subjectivity.

Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Monday, 18 December 2006 12:36:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:42 UTC