Re: Wrapping up the ACSS Module Ideas

Daniel Glazman:
> > I think that is the main reason that the
> > CSS & FP WG aren't so keen on the idea;
>
> Can you please explain that ? How can you express what the
> WG is keen on or is not keen on ?
I can't (therefore I wrote "I think"), but it appears that the major
dissentions from WG members expressed on this list have all been centered on
the fact that there are some HTML and other structural hacks. Three of Mr.
Hicksons suggested solutions were structural.
So, what is the WG's official line on this? Really, I don't want to bug the
WG: if they think it is a good idea, they'll implement it, if not they
won't - simple as that! Of course, there may be split opinions in the WG as
well...
The CSS & FP WG have done an excellent job with CSS 1 & 2, up-to-date: let's
not forget that!

> > but at least all of this discussion
> > may go towards saving the ACSS module...
>
> ACSS is CSS. Levels are not versions.
But you do agree that the ACSS module is without an author: at least in the
latest public draft of the CSS3 roadmap. I felt that the future of it wasn't
too bright when I see that it is "in danger of being dropped altogether".
What do you mean that "levels aren't versions?" I suppose you mean that what
is in CSS1 is in CSS2 and so on. If so, that mystifies what the roadmap
says. Of course, you could imply that I meant "will go towards saving future
developments of the ACSS module"...

I don't see why this *shouldn't* be put in the ACSS module, the only problem
is if it is worth the effort or not. It's easy for me: I don't have to do
the work!
[Having said that, I'll send the latest draft of all of the ideas expressed
so far in a formal format after I send this message].

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
WAP Tech Info - http://www.waptechinfo.com/

Received on Wednesday, 18 October 2000 10:14:47 UTC