- From: Jesse McCarthy <mccarthy36@earthlink.net>
- Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 18:00:32 -0400
- To: <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 20:38:24 +0100, Ian Hickson wrote: >Right. And that document has not been "rewriten ... to conform to >[the working >group's] revisionist version of history" as you alledge. That is why >I take >offense at your statement. That doesn't bother me. As a rational person and a professional I take offense at many of your statements. Ian Hickson: "For the record, that section of the spec has been rewritten . . . " Jesse McCarthy: "You're going to need to rewrite more of that spec to get it to conform to your revisionist version of history." You'll notice this is directed to you and does not mention the working group. >This is exactly the case. The error *has* been corrected and >documented. It is >on the (normative) errata document. I even quoted the errata tiem in >this forum, >so the situation has been clearly exposed. It would seem that you are unable to continue the discussion as you are unwilling or unable to face facts. I simply can not make it any simpler than this: CSS 2 Recommendation, 17.2 The CSS table model "The following 'display' values assign table semantics to an arbitrary element:" Ian Hickson "Nothing in CSS affects the semantics [1] of anything in any document." Those statements contradict each other and the CSS Rec. takes precedence, obviously. I asked you to explain this discrepancy and you have offered no explanation whatsoever.
Received on Sunday, 7 April 2002 18:05:49 UTC