Re: css layout should be symmetrical

Jesse McCarthy wrote:
 > As a rational person and a professional I take offense at many of your
 > statements.

In that case I apologise profusely, for it is not my intention to offend.

 > 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:"

Good catch. I shall raise this in the working group, and hopefully this error
shall also be corrected. (My apologies for not understanding that this was not
the same section as we previously corrected; I had assumed you were again
quoting the section of the spec that is now in the errata.)

 > 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.

It is an error in the specification. (I assume the authors of that section meant
the presentational semantics.)

 > 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."

Rewriting the spec (by adding to the errata) does not change history. That is
why your allegation is misleading and offensive.

 > You'll notice this is directed to you and does not mention the working group.

Since the English language does not distinguish between the singular and plural
forms of the second person, I had to take a guess as to which you meant. As I
did not personally rewrite the spec, I assumed you meant the working group.

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 19:19:35 UTC