Re: several messages

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 14:25:44 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Boris Zbarsky wrote:


>> The point is, just like adding a new value keyword it makes a UA
>> non-compliant.
> So you're complaining that CSS3 makes everyone non-compliant? Does
> that mean we should have stopped developing CSS as soon as CSS1 was
> released? That makes no sense. I assume I misunderstood what you were
> saying.

CSS3 is clearly something else compared to CSS2, that's what the number  
stands for. But Opera 4 introduced great specs-compliant support for CSS2  
absolute positioning in July 2000. Then the specs started changing, and  
Opera's literal interpretation of for example 'bottom:0' (stretch the  
element to the bottom, not shrinkwrapping it) was deprecated in erratas...  
So what 'CSS2-compliant' meant was changing over time.

I don't see how the working group could have done much better, neither  
leaving errors and unwanted items in nor releasing a string of updates  
(2.01, 2.02, 2.03) seems attractive.

>> Again, I didn't say any changes were unwarranted. I merely pointed
>> out the fact that the CSS spec has been a moving target for years
>> now, even if it's been moving for very good reasons.
> Any technology in active development is a moving target. Would you
> rather CSS stagnate the way HTML has stagnated for the past few years?

Probably not, but interoperability has been almost complete for years, and  
the few differences between browsers well known. MARQUEE for was Explorer,  
BLINK for Netscape :)

The Web is a procrastination apparatus:    |  Rijk van Geijtenbeek
It can absorb as much time as              |   Documentation & QA
is required to ensure that you             |   Opera Software ASA
won't get any real work done.  - J.Nielsen | M

Received on Friday, 2 April 2004 13:19:31 UTC