Re: Is there a way...

On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 15:24:19 +0200, glazman@netscape.com (Daniel
Glazman) wrote:

>Jan Roland Eriksson wrote:
>> This is where the 'bs' appears. In one single "blow", through an entry
>> in an errata document of all things, W3C actually improved the rate of
>> CSS compliance for MSIE and degraded all other CSS aware browsers at the
>> same time.

>All others ?

Is there a rule that says that no one outside W3 can develop a browser?
(go back to Berts post again to see that W3 illusion in full display)

>  http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=74845

Fine, you have been working on a detail, now how to get the whole
picture?

>> And we are supposed to have that after living with a _stable_ CSS2 spec
>> for three years?
>
>No standard in the world is stable.

You have not seen an ISO "standard" and a certified "inspector" living
it out toghether if you think you can say that.
Otoh, I have, more than one time :)

>It just does not exist. And if someone
>tells you that something is a stable standard, laugh.

Well, W3 does not produce "standards" in the first place, maybe that
fact is the problem that needs to be overcome?

>> I did not expect you to see reasons outside of the W3 world.
>This is just insulting.

No insults, just a concede to the fact that you are a W3 representative.
If you have problems with things like that, please indicate clearly in
your posts, in what capacity you are posting, and I will reply
accordingly.

>>...if you think that a simple underscore addition to CSS2 will save
>>the day, maybe you should spend some quality time on studies of XML
>>naming conventions :)

>Even with a smiley, this is really insulting.

You seem to be easily insulted?

If I have managed to "step on toes", please know that it was my
intention to do so. At times it's more revealing to read what got
snipped out of an original post than the actual comments sent on.

The real "sour cream" that you snipped out, is the bearer of the real
_truth_ in this case, right?

>This will be my last message in this thread,

(that's what you think:)

>I have other things to do than read insults.

It has nothing to do with "insults" it's just that you live in a "hotter
climate" than I do, you interpret things in a different way from what
was actually said.

>> Nope. XML can not 'dictate' a naming convention for CSS, and CSS can not
>> 'dictate' a naming convention for XML. They are two separate things.
>
>CSS is designed so it can at least apply to XML.

Of course, interface negoitiation between applications is needed every
where. DSSSL is designed to be a Turing complete programming language
_inside_ SGML (you can even syntactically validate a DSSSL instance
through nsgmls if you wish) XSLT is very close to the same for XML based
instances.

But still, none of them can "go" for instances and constructs that they
can not recognize.

In the same way, CSS can only "atack" what it can recognize since CSS
suggested rendering is _only_ (and for very good reasons) based on the
exact term "recognition".

>A naming convention was blocking...

In fact there was no _block_, but you may need a minute ar two to
understand that part of it.

>*ALL* implementors in the WG agreed on that. Period.

So? W3 specs are only applicable to W3 WG members?

Your home work for next day is here...
  Message-ID: <gbksat4allprkepjv69nv93ckqoqecgr41@4ax.com>


























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































-- 
Jan Roland Eriksson <jrexon@newsguy.com>
<http://member.newsguy.com/~jrexon/>

Received on Thursday, 12 April 2001 12:51:40 UTC