- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 17:06:28 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
Jesse McCarthy wrote:
> You're going to need to rewrite more of that spec to get it to
> conform to your revisionist version of history.
History? Nobody is changing history.
> (Aren't these kinds of fundamental changes in a technology
> traditionally accounted for by releasing new versions of the
> specification rather than manipulating one that's already been
> released for over three years piecemeal until it suits your own
> self-serving agenda?)
Yes, and the CSS working group intends to release a CSS 2.1 at some point in the
future (as has been mentioned soveral times in www-style).
> Let's break this down into simple terms. Do the table display types
> assign table semantics to an arbitrary element?
Nothing in CSS affects the semantics [1] of anything in any document. CSS is
purely a formatting language.
[1] dict.org defines 'semantics' as:
semantics n. the study of language meaning
--
Ian Hickson
``The inability of a user agent to implement part of this specification due to
the limitations of a particular device (e.g., non interactive user agents will
probably not implement dynamic pseudo-classes because they make no sense
without interactivity) does not imply non-conformance.'' -- Selectors, Sec13
Received on Sunday, 7 April 2002 12:06:32 UTC