RE: "inline" elements in CSS2 box model, and "inline-block" in CSS3

Vadim Plessky [] asked:
>On Monday 22 October 2001 15:59, Chris Wilson wrote:
>|   Note that my actual statement was that if a single company ever
>|   implemented _ALL_ of CSS2, so that I couldn't find any bugs or
>|   parts, I would buy that company a beer.  No one, to my knowledge, 
>Chris, can you clarify please: one beer to company, or one beer to

I believe the phrase you're looking for is "intentionally vague".  :^)

>Is your offer valid for CSS3 as well?

If you manage to prove me wrong for CSS2, then I expect I would be
significantly chastened and not stupid enough to make the same mistake
twice.  Note this offer wasn't made in the context of an enticement - it
was a statement that I thought CSS2 was sufficiently large, complex and
wide-ranging that no single company would ever find it worthwhile to
implement everything in it with sufficient detail so I couldn't find
missing bits or bugs.  Good on you if you can, though.

>...on another hand, this looks like too much internal / low-level font
>Current Fonts module became, in terms of complexity, close to TrueType 
>specification, and I am afraid that final WG recommendation can be (in
>of complexity/overhead) close to OpenType.
>I doubt such complexity is really necessary. It would be nice to hear
>opinion, though.
Heh.  Exactly my point - to implement the WebFonts section of CSS2 so
that I can't find anything missing or buggy is going to be very very

>|   made it yet, though Angus Davis brazenly claimed success for
Netscape a
>|   couple of years ago.
>Hmmm. May I ask you who is Angus Davis?

He was a Netscape marketing guy at the time, and member of the CSS and
HTML Working Groups.


Received on Monday, 22 October 2001 17:34:21 UTC