- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:44:11 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
* Bert Bos wrote: >Your e-mail: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Sep/0106.html > >CSS WG response: > > Change part 4 of the CR exit criteria to read: > 4. Features that were not in CSS1 will be dropped (thus reducing the > list of "all" features mentioned above) if two or more > interoperable implementations of those features are not found by > the end of the CR period. I object to this resolution. The operative Process document clearly outlaws such general statements and even if it were allowed, if the Working Group is not convinced that any feature of the document will get interoperably implemented, the document is clearly not mature enough to issue a call for implementations. It is, for example, not acceptable for web authors to be presented as CSS 2.1 Recommendation without positioning, the :hover pseudo-class or media specific style sheets; the Recommendation would be of no use to them if these features get dropped and hence they would formally object to the advancement of the Candidate Recommendation anyway. Either there are specific features that require implementation experience to determine whether they can be included in the Rec, in which case these features must be precisely identified, or there are no such features, in which case missing interoperable implementations just demonstrate that there is something wrong with the specification that requires a substantive change in order to get fixed, in which case the document must go back to Working Draft status anyway. I would also like to point out that changing only part four of the proposed exit criteria would not have been satisfactory anyway, my original issue was about part four and three. regards.
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2004 05:44:54 UTC