Re: complexity

On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 wrote:
>>> CSS is funny in that it was created as part of trying to clean up
>>> HTML but is being driven by marketing driven feature creep.
>> There's actually very little marketing force behind CSS right now.
> Indirect marketing force.

I'm on the working group, work for a browser vendor, have worked for
another browser vendor, and have worked with CSS in those contexts for
several years. I can't actually think of a _single_ case where a marketing
department has in any way affected the CSS specs.

> Authors want to do silly things like :first-letter, and marketing wants
> to satisfy these silly wishes...

I'm confused; you want the working group to _not_ address author wishes?

(And note that :first-letter was actually introduced in CSS1, long before
CSS came to the public eye. I doubt marketing wanting to satisfy authors
had anything at all to do with :first-letter being in the spec.)

>> And the CSS group is the only group to be truly looking for dual
>> interoperable implementations before releasing a CR spec to PR, which
>> is making it even harder for the specs to be poor.
> Well, this should help a lot; but it doesn't really solve the problem.
> What does it help when Mozilla and Opera prove that something is
> possible, if no other browser (except maybe IE, if they wanted to) is
> able to implement it?

If two UAs can implement it, why would a third not be able to?

Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
U+1047E                                         /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Friday, 9 April 2004 11:35:35 UTC