- From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:02:03 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 8/30/05, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 30, 2005, 9:48:13 PM, Ian wrote: > > IH> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Chris Lilley wrote: > >>>> > >>>> My point exactly. If you want to propose a change to the W3C Process, > >>>> I can point you to the list for such proposals. However, it would be > >>>> simpler and quicker to use an existing term. > >>> > >>> Very well. I shall forward your request that we rescind the original > >>> revision of CSS2 to the working group for more detailed discussion. > >> > >> You mentioned something earlier about the wisdom of putting words in > >> another's mouth? > > IH> Chris, the three options are: > > IH> 1. Call CSS 2.1 a new edition of the original CSS2. > > IH> 2. Rescind the original CSS2. > > IH> 3. Do what the CSS working group are doing today. > > IH> You said you didn't want 3. > > If 3 was clearer, perhaps. > > IH> We can't do 1, because we have made normative > IH> changes. > > Areed. > > IH> Yet you were requiring that we do either 1 or 2. That leaves 2. > > IH> Hence, my conclusion that you were asking for 2. > > That seemed to be what "abandoned" was closest to. And yet, it raised > issues about other specs that reference CSS 2. > > IH> Since apparently that _isn't_ what you are asking, I once again request > IH> you to please re-explain what it is that the CDF and SVG working groups > IH> are asking for in this issue. > > In fact, its the CSS WG who has to explain to the Director what they are > planning to do and how the different levels/versions/models/whatever > relate to each other, next time they make a document transition request. > > Once again, its a simple request for clarity. I would prefer that you > don't invent a new category of half-recommended sort-or-obsoleted, > "abandoned but other specs can still point to it". > > But if you are unable to be clearer about CSS2 and CSS1, then I guess your > request for advancement will need to go forward with a request for such > a category. > > Or you could ask for CSS2 to be rescinded, if you (rather, the CS WG) > feels that is best, provided there is some plan for what to do about > specs that reference CSS2 now or plan to in the future. Is not 2.1 really 3 and 3 really 4? I see 2.1 as a new version of CSS. Admittedly 2 was never implemented, but does that matter in terms of numbering them? -- Orion Adrian
Received on Wednesday, 31 August 2005 02:02:19 UTC