- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 02:14:26 +0100
- To: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- CC: ewexler@stickdog.com, www-style@w3.org
Tantek Çelik wrote: > On 5/5/02 11:23 AM, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: >> This prevents chaos as caused by IE4's 'position' implementation, which was >> based on a draft which changed before CSS2 reached PR stage, and meant that >> documents written for IE4 totally broke on compliant implementations. This is, >> in fact, one of the main events that spurred on these guidelines. > > Ian, please do not attempt to rewrite history that occurred well before you > were even involved with CSS. Sorry, I was trying to give it accurately -- I certainly didn't mean to criticize Microsoft or the WG or the editors or anyone, if that's how you interpreted my comments. > IE4 implemented position (and top, left) as agreed and designed by the CSS > WG in the last WD-positioning draft. ...which is what I said. > It is more correct to say that mistakes like this in CSS2 are what spurred > the CR exit criteria that we have for Selectors, CSS Mobile Profile 1.0, and > AFAIAC, every other CR draft that the CSS WG will produce. Indeed, the 'position' issue also spurred on the CR stage. -- 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, 5 May 2002 21:14:35 UTC