Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful

I think this post is off topic for this list, probably more appropriate for
www-style. ;-)

Tantek


On 1/15/03 5:06 PM, "Jonny Axelsson" <jax@opera.no> wrote:

> 
> 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.
>

Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2003 21:03:10 UTC