- From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 18:32:26 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
David Woolley wrote: >>That is only the case because CSS lacks a standard method of version >>control (for lack of the proper term) -- the CSS equivalent of a doctype >>declaration. Isn't that the case? > > These problems are not to do with a scalar version. They are the result > of partial implementations, faulty implementations with large market > share, and designers who never read and understand source documents, so > fail to understand that certain things are deliberately not specified, > in order to allow different implementation approaches, but then expect > everyone else to follow the market leader. If that is a given, not the ideal situation but the real-world situation, shouldn't you accept that for a fact and keep it into account when designing a specification? > The result is that a browser will typically be at an implementation > extension level in one area, CSS2 in another, CSS3 in yet another, > CSS1 elswhere, broken in places, technically compliant but constrained > by display technology in such a way as not to be able to meet designer > expectations, in places, etc. There are no complete CSS 2 implementations, > and probably no complete CSS 2.1 ones. > > Also, extremely few HTML documents have valid doctypes, and, for most > well formed HTML it is not possible to specify one because the browser > developers don't publish DTDs for their extensions, but most commercial > HTML uses those extensions. That suggests that the presence of version > information would be so unreliable as to be useless. I'd say versioning CSS is not as much for the purpose of validation, as it a means to enable breaking existing specifications, 'start over' with things that appeared to be not such-a-good-idea afterwards after all, and clean things up which have become messy because backwards compatibility needs to be retained. Like the collapsing of zero-width margins this discussion was about (note that I do not really have an opinion on whether this case is one of those not-so-good-ideas - I at least never encountered it as a problem so far) (also note that I don't have a real opinion about versioning, but at first sight it looks like a reasonable idea :)). ~Grauw -- Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san!!
Received on Sunday, 9 January 2005 17:32:25 UTC