Re: Styling conflict

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Chris Lilley wrote:
>> 
>> CSS2.1 _is_ the second edition. That's what the ".1" bit means. It's 
>> short for "CSS Level 2 Revision 1".
> 
> That is one possible interpretation. Its possibly a good interpretation. 
> If it *is* the intent - and contrary opinions were expressed on this 
> exact point in the past couple of years - then the confusing text quoted 
> below should be revised:
> 
> "CSS 2.1 builds on CSS2 [CSS2] which builds on CSS1 [CSS1]."
> 
> which makes it sound like CSS 1 exists and you can use that, CSS 2 
> exists and you can use that, CSS 2.1 exists and you can use that... 
> after all, CSS 2 becoming a Rec did not result in CSS 1 being withdrawn.

Good point. Issue noted as CSS2.1 CR issue 97.


> Its not at all clear from the SotD that CSS 2.1 is a subset of CSS 2 and 
> that the rest of CSS2 is removed, put back to working draft. If that is 
> the intent, please state this clearly and unambiguously in the Status of 
> this Document. I propose the following text to make that clear:
> 
> "CSS 2.1 is derived from and is intended to replace CSS2. Some parts of 
> CSS2 are unchanged in CSS 2.1, some parts have been altered, and some 
> parts removed. The removed portions may be used in a future CSS3 
> specification. Once CSS 2.1 becomes a W3C Recommendation, it is the 
> intention of the CSS Working Group to move CSS 2 to Rescinded status."

Noted for WG discussion.

Thanks,
-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Friday, 19 November 2004 13:51:55 UTC