- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 13:11:59 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Orion Adrian <oadrian@hotmail.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
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 /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 9 April 2004 09:12:10 UTC