- From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:49:05 -0800
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Christian Roth <roth@visualclick.de>
- CC: <www-style@w3.org>
On 2/24/03 7:04 AM, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU> wrote: > > Christian Roth wrote: >> All of these were in CSS2, and at least one application (MS >> Word) has (though probably limited) support for them. > > The key number here is "two" as in "two interoperable implementations". > The idea of CSS2.1 is to create a spec that actually has > implementation support; if there is only one implementation that doth > not implementation support make per the CR exit criteria. Precisely. >> Any comments on why they are going to be removed (along with 'orphans' >> and 'widows', which do not seem to have any replacement, also)? > > And which nothing implements. So no one is hurt by them being removed, > really.... And actually, plenty of folks are "hurt" by them staying there, that is, people (especially authors) reading the spec are misled into thinking that these properties are actually useful when they're not. > They will still appear in the relevant CSS3 module, most likely. Most likely yes. They may be improved in response to analyses made since CSS2 was published. Tantek
Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 12:36:07 UTC