W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > September 2007

Re: PLEASE STOP - CSS tags being removed from version to version

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 07:55:35 +0100
Message-ID: <46DE52E7.8070001@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: www-html@w3.org
CC: www-style CSS <www-style@w3.org>

amber wrote:

> What I'm talking about?
> Through many years of watching how CSS has been progressing through the 

This is off topic.  The correct list of this topic is www-style.

 > It just ends up creating a problem for the web designers and the ones
 > paying for the web design.

If people have used these *properties* and values, the pages need 
redesigning anyway.  The criterion for removal is supposed to have been 
that there are no consistent implementations in browsers, so anyone 
using them is either having them ignored in most browsers or is getting 
different results in different browsers.

Fuller text because copying onto the correct list.
> What I'm talking about?
> Through many years of watching how CSS has been progressing through the 
> years, I've noticed that certain tags and elements that I've used and 
> that I know others have used are being removed from future versions of CSS.
> A few of these are, but not limited to:
> The "clear" property for the psuedo elements, :first-letter and 
> :first-line is in CSS2 only; was removed in CSS2.1.
> The "text-shadow" property for both pseudo elements, :first-letter and 
> :first-line is in CSS2 only.
> CSS2 introduced a way to exert much greater control over font matching 
> through a @font-face rule. Since no web browsers had fully implemented 
> this rule as of spring 2003, @font-face was removed from CSS2.1.
> Also, the following properties, listed below, appeared in CSS2 but were 
> dropped from CSS2.1 due to a lack of widespread support.
> Visual Styles:
> font-size-adjust
> font-stretch
> marker-offset
> text-shadow
> Paged Media:
> marks
> page
> size
> Aural Styles:
> azimuth
> cue
> cue-after
> cue-before
> elevation
> pause
> pause-after
> pause-before
> pitch
> pitch-range
> play-during
> richness
> speak
> speak-header
> speak-numeral
> speak-punctuation
> speech-rate
> stress
> voice-family
> volume
> The problem is that when there are people that are using elements given 
> to us to use, we use them trusting that they'll be there for the long-term.
> When we  tell clients that CSS is the best thing since sliced bread and 
> they should redo their websites using CSS, we use these elements and 
> properties while creating them and later on down the road we end up 
> finding out that some elements we used while creating half a dozen 
> clients sites need redoing because this version of CSS has removed a 
> handful of elements that I had used while creating a handful of past sites.
> It just ends up creating a problem for the web designers and the ones 
> paying for the web design.
> Amber.
> Mac Joseph wrote:
>> First of all, who are you, and please, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING 
>> Kindest Regards; LOL
>> MJW
>> */amber <amber@ambrosia.lt> <mailto:amber@ambrosia.lt>/* wrote:
>>     The elements that I'm referring to are any elements that are added
>>     for a CSS version, then in the next version, taken out.
>>     What about the people that do use the elements? Some people create
>>     very large sites and use the elements that are available, then
>>     when those elements are taken out, removed, during the next
>>     version - that person has to then redesign the entire site,
>>     depending on the element used.
>>     I spend quite a bit of time getting work by telling the clients
>>     about all of the benefits of using CSS.
>>     How do I explain to my client that he needs to fork out another
>>     few hundred dollars because I need to redesign a site because the
>>     element I used is now unavailable and that's why his site doesn't
>>     "look" like it once did?
>>     I surely can't redesign the site on my dime, but it would only
>>     seem right because I chose to use the tags that someone decided to
>>     remove in a later version because it wasn't "widely used"...
>>     Just because an element isn't widely used doesn't mean that it
>>     isn't used at all.
>>     I've read through some manuals that described an element that I
>>     thought to myself about all the great things I could do with it,
>>     just to find out that it was taken out because it wasn't used or
>>     widely known about by enough people.
>>     How does the W3C know how many people are and aren't using an
>>     element? Just because someone doesn't validate all of their pages
>>     doesn't mean that they don't use the tags given to them to use.
>>     The W3C provides us with elements that provide great functionality
>>     and that can be modified and expanded on in the future. I do
>>     appreciate that and I know many others do, as well. But please do
>>     not take away an element just because it doesn't "seem" to be
>>     being used by many.
>>     Thanks.
>>     Amber.
>> Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!
>> Play Monopoly Here and Now 
>> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48223/*http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow> 
>> (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. 

David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2007 06:56:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 30 April 2020 16:21:04 UTC