Re: complexity (was: Re: XHTML and RDF)

On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Orion Adrian wrote:
>>> Generally standardisation is done after the fact.
>> In the groups I'm involved in or peripheral to, this is not really the
>> case. In particular the CSS, XHTML, SVG, and XForms groups all tend to
>> write specifications before (or in tandem with) implementations.
> And certain specs are better than others and I think it shows.

I don't think that there is a strong correlation between the specs where
implementations precede specifications and the specs that are complicated.
Certainly there isn't in my experience.

>>> CSS is funny in that it was created as part of trying to clean up HTML
>>> but is being driven by marketing driven feature creep.
>> There's actually very little marketing force behind CSS right now. And
>> the CSS group is the only group to be truly looking for dual
>> interoperable implementations before releasing a CR spec to PR, which
>> is making it even harder for the specs to be poor.
> And yet they still are.

Do you have any specific criticisms?

> It is not enough to advance good additions to a language, one must also
> look at the core of the language and how the new features will interact
> with the older ones.

I believe the CSS group does this carefully, certainly with more recent
work that has been a focus.

> Personally I think how the box model works in CSS to be insane.

The block box model, or the inline box model?

> CSS has huge problems that haven't been addressed.

Could you point them out to us?

Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
U+1047E                                         /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Friday, 9 April 2004 09:12:10 UTC