Re: [CSS21] Lack of version control for content

On Thursday, August 25, 2005, 9:24:39 PM, fantasai wrote:

f> Chris Lilley wrote:
>> Hello ,
>> 
>> This comment is sent from both the CDF WG and the SVG WG.
>> 
>>   Thus, while it is not the case that a CSS2 stylesheet is necessarily
>>   forwards-compatible with CSS 2.1, it is the case that a stylesheet
>>   restricting itself to CSS 2.1 features is more likely to find a
>>   compliant user agent today and to preserve forwards compatibility in
>>   the future. While breaking forward compatibility is not desirable, we
>>   believe the advantages to the revisions in CSS 2.1 are worthwhile.
>>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-CSS21-20050613/about.html#q1
>> 
>> Experience with the CSS validator shows that the lack of version
>> identification is a significant problem for managing CSS content; there
>> is no way to indicate to which of the multiple, changing, overlapping
>> versions of CSS the stye sheet is attempting to comply. As the quoted
>> section illustrates, there are incompatibilities between versions.
>> 
>> The SVG WG requests that CSS 2.1 align itself with the Architecture of
>> the World Wide Web
>> 
>>    A data format specification SHOULD provide for version information.
>>    http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#ext-version
>> 
>> As an example, @version 2.1; would be one method. Unknown at-rules are
>> ignored by compliant parsers.

f> This issue was discussed at the previous F2F and I believe it was
f> concluded that CSS does not need to embed version information.

I would e interested in a pointer to that discussion, offlist oif
required.

f> Instead, the validator software should allow for multiple profiles,
f> including tailored ones based on the actual state of relevant
f> implementations

you mean, @aimed-at WinIE5;  or something else ?


f> rather than less relevant state of version numbers.

So, are you saying that

- the introduction of CSS 2.1 does not add any
particular value since all implementations do different things

- validation is useless for CSS (please tell the validator developers if
so)

- something else?

f>  This would be much
f> more useful to authors. Daniel Glazman has some concerns about authoring
f> software, however, and reserialization.

f> ~fantasai




-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead

Received on Friday, 26 August 2005 14:11:06 UTC