- From: Liam Quinn <liam@htmlhelp.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 12:45:00 -0500
- To: www-style@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:46 AM 03/12/97 -0500, Douglas Rand wrote: >I'm objecting to a non-bc >change to the CSS standard, which is unnecessary and which will not >work. The protestations to the contrary - that somewhere in the CSS1 >standard there was some wording about ignoring rules which have bad >syntax isn't enough to make this right. Why are you trying to imply that CSS1's forward compatibility requirements were hidden or ambiguous? The standard is very clear on this issue. >> As long as nothing significant is changed there is never a problem, >> losing sections and making minor rewrites is fine, or at least making >> a significant document noting all of the changes. > >As David mentioned, this isn't even a draft standard yet. This is a >proposal. I'll surely make whatever comments about changes I please, >and I expect the comments to be addressed. I would never tell our w3c >rep to vote in favor of a spec. if I thought it had serious flaws. This >is clearly a serious flaw - the inability to work with existing >software. CSS1 didn't work with existing software (IE3) when it became a standard. Did you tell your rep to vote for it? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNIWam/P8EtNrypTwEQLAjgCgiGnIdXXXKRMd/PmWZTZ/9Z+g9gkAn28c z4e9XgioO+QpHmsqQwp26BBX =3oQN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Liam Quinn Web Design Group Enhanced Designs, Web Site Development http://www.htmlhelp.com/ http://enhanced-designs.com/
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 1997 12:43:58 UTC