W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2011

Re: Levels and modular structure

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:24:22 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCXVo5_=VZURH6LeL-CmecT=TdNXPc-Ah_D6Gqt-JSpOg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
Cc: W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Christoph Päper
<christoph.paeper@crissov.de> wrote:
> Tab Atkins Jr.:
>> With a few obvious exceptions (the "XXX Profile" specs),
> Those profiles are just official collections, i.e. public variants of what a vendor may decide internally.


>> implementors are expected to implement everything.
> Where does it say so?

It doesn't.  That's just the general assumption.  CSS is a big block
of stuff that's expected to all work together.  Every web browser is
expected to implement the same set of stuff that every other web
browser does, or else they'll render web content incompatibly.

A UA that doesn't care about the general web can pick and choose what
to implement, but we don't give any thought to them when designing

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Sylvain Galineau
<sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:
> [Tab Atkins Jr.:]
>> Ah, yes, that explains why we're talking past each other.  Yes, modules
>> are there purely to make specifying and reading easier.
> It's a lot more than for the comfort of editors and their readers afaik; it
> primarily allows for the incremental standardization and implementation of
> features. The alternative being that opacity to not be standard until Regions
> or whatever else we choose to put in Level 3 is 'done'.

Sorry, my wording wasn't very clear.  When I said "make specifying
easier", I meant the entire process of specification, not the more
limited sense of actually writing the spec that Christoph was talking

But that doesn't matter very much; I strongly agree with you.  ^_^

Received on Monday, 21 November 2011 21:25:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:07 UTC