- From: Jonny Axelsson <jax@opera.no>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 02:06:27 +0100
- To: "www html w3.org" <www-html@w3.org>
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:27:50 +0100, Daniel Glazman <glazman@netscape.com> wrote: > (d) sorry to say, but XHTML 2.0 seems to me the live proof that something > is going wrong at W3C. Since we are in the process of airing our personal W3C bugbears, and speaking for myself only, right now CSS 3.0 is to me the living proof that something is going wrong at W3C. It is a monster that noone will ever implement, and it is getting uglier by the month. This from the group with the best production and QA rules at the W3C. The exit criteria for each single module will be passed for most of them eventually, there will always be two implementations, but CSS 3.0 as a whole will be fragmented. The entire exercise still makes sense to me, because after CSS 3.0 there is bound to be a CSS 3.1 (CSS 3--the useable bits), similar to what is now happening with CSS 2.1. This spec will be supported by Opera, and presumably Netscape and, Microsoft willing, Internet Explorer, as well as Konqueror and others. Only a pity that CSS 3.0 seems destined to go through a "CSS: The Ultimate Solution" phase first. -- Jonny Axelsson, Web Standards, Opera software
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2003 20:08:36 UTC