- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:41:30 -0700
- To: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
- CC: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Arron Eicholz wrote: > On Tuesday, 2008-02-26 09:29 -8:00, L. David Baron wrote: > > I think you may be right. Not changing CSS 2.1 might be the right idea. > To create a better definition we need to really rework all of tables > definition, which we are doing for CSS3, and get that correct. I'm > going to then close CSS 2.1 issue 1 as we will leave the definition as > is and will focus on getting a good definition correct in CSS3 Tables. If you expect the definition in CSS3 to be incompatible with the definition currently in CSS2.1, then do not close the issue. Instead state what needs to be changed or left undefined so that a conforming CSS3 UA is also a conforming CSS2.1 UA. ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 17:41:00 UTC