Re: [CSS21] Unclear status of different versions

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Chris Lilley wrote:
> 
> CSS 2.1 is said to be both a development from CSS 2.0 (and CSS 1.0) and 
> a replacement for CSS 2.0;

CSS2.x is an extension of the CSS1 specification and CSS2.1 is a revision 
of the original CSS2 specification. Thus, indeed, CSS2.1 is a development 
from both CSS2 and CSS1.

CSS2.1 is a revision of the original CSS2 specification; a new "edition" 
(although W3C process IIRC prevents us from calling it that since some 
normative requirements changed). Thus it does indeed replace the original 
CSS2 specification.


> later it is described as a partial replacement for CSS2.0, with removed 
> features being defined in CSS2; it is also stated that such features may 
> move into CSS3.

More to the point, it says that implementations may refer to the original 
CSS2 spec for the definitions of the removed features.


> Will CSS 1.0 and 2.0 continue to be maintained, with eratta, or are they 
> abandoned?

They are abandoned. CSS2's errata getting too long was the main reason for 
CSS2.1 to be created; the few features that were removed had no errata to 
my knowledge, and are now being maintained in CSS3 (the main such feature, 
namely @font-face, is covered by a CSS3 spec for which you are the 
editor). CSS Level 1 is to be defined by the profile parts of the CSS3 
modules; the main market for CSS Level 1 is mobile devices, and the CSS 
Mobile Profile has taken that role now.


> In addition, later the spec talks of removing features from CSS2:
> 
>   Removing CSS2 features that will be obsoleted by CSS3, thus
>   encouraging adoption of the proposed CSS3 features in their place.

This refers to display: marker, which is indeed obsoleted (never 
implemented, bad design, replaced by the significantly better ::marker in 
CSS3). I don't think there were any others, but I may be wrong. The same 
would apply to them if there are any.


Your comment did not seem to include a specific request, but please let us 
know if the above explanations are satisfactory. If they are not, please 
let us know exactly what would be.

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

Received on Sunday, 28 August 2005 16:44:31 UTC