Re: LC Comment - Script & Progressive Rendering / Multiple Pages

"Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
>> No, that's a non-maintained document that calls itself a proposed errata, 
>> if
>> it's actually something else, then it shouldn't say that, until then I'm 
>> going
>> to trust what it says, rather than a post on another list.
>
> Only the last section is "proposed errata". Everything else is just real
> errata. And the reason it isn't being maintained is that we instead
> published a revision to the specification, namely CSS2.1.

It would really help if this was clear, the CSS WG are obligated to track 
errata, and just saying "this is no longer maintained" I don't think 
achieves that.  With CSS 2.1 now so far advanced I think it would be an 
excellent idea to revisit this document, removing those "proposed errata" 
bits which are attempting to "clarify into correctness", they're 
unneccessary now.

> CSS2 may well be rescinded once CSS2.1 reaches REC, that's still being
> considered.

Excellent I really would support that most strongly.

> Therefore rescinding the spec would result in dangling pointers which
> would require other specs to be rereleased causing a ripple effect.

I can appreciate this, but the alternative is to have user agents stuck in a 
limbo of what to support when CSS2 is referred to, when 2.1 is much more 
sensible, and supported for the other properties.

> You may not like the way it is being done, but the fact is that the CSS
> working group _is_ doing something about the issues in CSS2

Oh no, sorry if you took it that way, I fully support how the CSS WG have 
worked on sorting out the CSS2 mess, I was merely highlighting how errata's 
are badly used in the W3, they either do not exist at all, or do not exist 
in anything but not-maintained and proposed states.  The actual result of 
CSS 2.1 is a very good, the problem is that the CSS2 mess is still there.

Cheers,

Jim.

Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2004 22:37:51 UTC