- From: Jan Roland Eriksson <jrexon@newsguy.com>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 13:14:46 +0200
- To: <www-style@w3.org>
On Sat, 28 Jul 2001 17:52:20 -0500, you wrote: >>From: Jan Roland Eriksson <jrexon@newsguy.com> >>To: www-style@w3.org >>Subject: Re: @version rule >>Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 21:26:50 +0200 >> >> >>From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> >>[wrote some sense] >> >> >>To: Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@hotmail.com> >>who obviously does not understand shit about the concept at hand. > >This is possible. Please teach me to understand. What's wrong with each >of my points? All of them; The original CSS1 spec already describes the concept of "forward compatible parsing", if extensions to CSS are designed according to those original rules of CSS, no version info at all need to be introduced. CSS support is _not_ a compulsory component of a user agent, any programmer can decide for him/her self about what level of CSS (or what mix of CSS versions) to code support for. As long as the resulting code adheres to the concept of "forward compatible parsing" as originally described, all is Ok and the idea of a @version can be killed off. Your error (and quite a few of "experts" error too) is that you seem to think "backward" instead of "forward", give those two words a serious though on how they connect to CSS parsing, and maybe the tokens will fall down the hatch. -- Rex
Received on Sunday, 29 July 2001 07:20:21 UTC