Re: Wrapping up the ACSS Module Ideas

> > 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.
> Only 1 CSS+FP WG member participated in this thread (see [1]) :
> Ian Hickson. I am also member, read all contributions, but had nothing
> to say until today.
> [1]

I know you are a WG member. That's why I asked what the general concensus
Mr. Hickson was very kind in discussing this: don't forget that I come from
an HTML background where all public ideas are ignored due to the fact that
1.1/Mod cannot undergo any changes that add features to it. Also,  the HTML
WG are a very closed envionment; I hope this is not as much of a case with
the CSS & FP WG? Certainly, from what I have seen, they seem one of the more
open groups (there has been a *lot* of discussion about this on xml-dev
lately, with many people saying that W3C privacy is way too tight.
Personally, I couldn't care less; the W3C does what they think they have to
In fact I remember someone mentioning to me that the CSS group often has a
higher level of public involvement than most other WG's - hooray!

P.S. The outcome of my correspondance with Matthew Brealy is that ACSS could
*theoretically* be dropped. Is it still in danger of being dropped, as the
roadmap suggests (or can't you say publicly)? I still think it (ACSS) is
fairly vital...Voice Browsers really *do* have their place in the modern
world. Inspiring discussion is my way of trying to help ;-)

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
President and Founder
WAP Tech Info -

Received on Wednesday, 18 October 2000 13:01:09 UTC