- From: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
- Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 14:42:18 +0100
- To: W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>
Tab Atkins Jr.: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:32 AM, Christoph Päper > >> A major problem remains, though, in that some but not all parts of the monolithic level 2 specification have been moved into modules. > > Why is that a problem? It means that modules have to normatively reference all (or nothing) of CSS level 2 (revision 1). Accordingly, conforming implementations of such a module would have to support CSS 2.1 completely. (Actually it probably wouldn’t have to but it’s somewhat implied.) > It merely means that we haven't felt a strong enough need to update those portions yet. The first step of modularization is splitting into modules, not adding new stuff. >> [module] forking should only be allowed if all previous features of a module remain in exactly one of its successors and those develop at the same pace. > > Hm, why do you feel this is necessary? It’s not strictly necessary, but preferable. > I see nothing wrong with a splitting a module so that a piece contains only part of the down-level spec. That’s fine, as long as there is another piece with the other parts.
Received on Friday, 18 November 2011 13:42:47 UTC