- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:47:56 -0400
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Hi Ian,
Thanks for your answer.
Le 05-08-23 à 11:13, Ian Hickson a écrit :
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Karl Dubost wrote:
>> In CSS 2.1 vs CSS 2
>> [[[
>> Removing CSS2 features which, by virtue of not having been
>> implemented, have
>> been rejected by the CSS community. CSS2.1 aims to reflect what
>> CSS features
>> are reasonably widely implemented for HTML and XML languages in
>> general
>> (rather than only for a particular XML language, or only for HTML).
>> ]]] - http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-CSS21-20050613/about.html#q1
>>
>> - Could you give a list of all CSS 2 features which have not been
>> implemented
>> - Could you give a list of all CSS 2 features which have been
>> implemented AND
>> - have a change of behavior in CSS 2.1
>> - disappear in CSS 2.1
>
> Is Appendix C satisfactory to this end?
Not really. The CSS WG is asserting in the documents that things have
not been implemented and things have been implemented
AND
that it will be one of the reasons to remove some features. Without
giving the picture of the landscape by the mean of a CSS
implementation charts, it's difficult to evaluate.
The Appendix C gives the changes between two versions of the CSS
technology:
CSS 2 and CSS 2.1
not the implementations.
I guess with the CSS Test Suite plus things like
http://www.macedition.com/cb/resources/abridgedcsssupport.html
You would be able to assert for each properties what has been
implemented and not implemented and where. That would be beneficial
for the Web community.
--
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2005 18:48:10 UTC