- 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