- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:46:00 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Karl Dubost wrote: > > I'm just saying that dropping the CSS feature seems to me dangerous > because it has been shown that it was ?difficult? to implement on the > HTML side. > > Then I was wondering if the CSS property would make it easier by not > having a table of all cases, and leaving the freedom to author to > specify the right characters. > > Is it clearer? :) I understand what you're saying, but I don't understand what you want us (the CSSWG) to do. The feature, if it isn't implemented yet remains in the spec, will prevent us from leaving CR. Thus, we are saying that if it isn't implemented, we'll remove it so that we can exit CR. This applies to *every single feature in the draft*, the ones that are in the "at risk" section are simply those that we believe are likely to be the ones that will take the longest to be interoperably implemented (and that would thus, if we didn't remove them, block us from exiting CR). By listing them as "at risk", we are allowed to simply remove them and go to PR, instead of having to go back to LC first. It's just a process thing. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 13 July 2005 19:46:05 UTC