Re: [CSS21] response to issue 15b

On 2/11/04 6:40 AM, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

> 
> * Ian Hickson wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, David Woolley wrote:
>>> I might think that a lot of this sort of animation is bad for users,
>>> but that is not the perception of the people with the money to pay
>>> for sites,  so any W3C specification that doesn't acknowledge it will
>>> be treated as an irrelevance.
>> 
>> Any W3C specification that "acknowledges" a feature by describing it in a
>> way completely different to the real world will also be treated as an
>> irrelevance. I don't see why you would prefer the spec to be wrong
>> (effectively, to lie) than to simply not mention the features which are
>> not interoperably implemented.
> 
> That's not the point. The W3C Recommendation Track process is designed
> to standardize Web technology by maximizing consensus about the content
> of a technical report. If a feature does not get implemented at all,
> spite the expectation of the Working Group, the feature should be
> reconsidered and probably be revised rather than be dropped blindly. If
> a feature is not interoperably implemented, the Working Group should do
> further work to gain interoperability.

That is precisely what the working group is doing.

What you have described is the difference between CSS2.1 and the CSS3
modules.

Features which have been interoperably implemented will be kept in CSS2.1.

Otherwise, they will not be "dropped blindly".  They will be moved to the
appropriate CSS3 module(s), so the working group can do further work to gain
interoperability.

Thus your last comment in this thread is accepted.

Any features "dropped" from CSS2.1 will be included in the appropriate CSS3
module(s), and they will not be dropped blindly.

Thanks for your feedback.

Tantek Çelik
for the CSS WG

Received on Monday, 16 February 2004 12:46:52 UTC