- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 07:52:12 -0800
- To: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
- Cc: W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de> wrote: > 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.) I must ask again: why is that a problem? That's *intended*. >> 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. Well, yeah. Unless you're deprecating a feature, of course all of the previous-level parts should exist in *some* module. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 18 November 2011 15:53:09 UTC