- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 08:53:25 -0800
- To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
At 6:59 AM +0000 2/6/02, David Woolley wrote: > > I think CSS1 should be given up on, since CSS2 supercedes it. The most > >I think what people mean when they say that CSS1 isn't implemented >fully is that CSS1 features that are also in CSS2 are not yet implemented. Correct. Part of the problem though is that I hear other people -- not you, David -- talking about "CSS1 browsers" and how they won't even use any "CSS2" until "CSS1 is supported." That's not likely to happen because the division of "CSS1" as a subset of "CSS2" is pointless and meaningless at this point. It's a point I stress in my (forthcoming) book -- the difference between CSS1 and CSS2 is less important than the difference between "correctly implemented by the browsers" CSS and "unsupported" CSS. It doesn't matter where it was defined (as long as it _was_ defined) -- what does matter is (a) how do you use it properly, and (b) what happens if you use it properly? (I.e. is there browser support?) --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com Web Accessibility Expert-for-hire http://kynn.com/resume Next Book: Teach Yourself CSS in 24 http://cssin24hours.com
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2002 11:56:27 UTC