- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:26:26 +0200
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
Le 25/03/12 23:57, L. David Baron a écrit : > CSS 2.1 is a Recommendation, but it's not complete. People will > continue to find mistakes in it or places where it doesn't agree > with reality, and they'll continue needing to be fixed. We should > also continue to improve the test suite to reflect areas where > authors have problems because implementations don't agree. > > CSS as a whole certainly isn't complete, and I think the working > group pays a significant cost to get some things to Recommendation, > e.g., in spending energy discussing, implementing, and testing > unimportant features that are related to high-priority features. CSS is made by humans. Humans make mistakes, even if well hidden, even in some areas (airplanes, cars, nuclear plants) where mistakes are not acceptable. There is NOT a single domain of the industry out there where complete == mistake-free. In all industry, whatever the domain, completion means reaching a level of potential mistakes that's accepted by wide consensus as "complete". I don't see why computer science should be different. So sorry, I disagree entirely with you here. We declared CSS 2.1 "complete" and that's why we were able to publish it. We did not declare it "perfect" because we know perfection does not exist. We will declare CSS 3 modules complete, one after the other. We will never declare them perfect. </Daniel>
Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 05:26:50 UTC