- From: Matthew Wilcox <elvendil@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 18:22:20 +0000
- To: Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-style@w3.org
I'd be up for compiling something like that with input from others. Should I start another thread for this purpose? On 19 February 2012 18:06, Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com> wrote: > On 19/2/12 19:49, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >> >> I'm sure it has, and I don't expect anything to change with regard to >> this - decisions have already been made and CSS has a history it's >> going to maintain. I still don't like the result. >> >> I don't see CSS development to be sustainable in the long term without >> the ability to author to a specified version. These "we can't do that >> because it breaks backward compatibility" things will eventually be >> one of the main causes for replacement technologies. >> >> I'm with Chris Epstein and co; CSS is the worst aspect of the web >> medium: http://infrequently.org/2012/02/misdirection/ > > > I think it would be more productive if someone compiled a list of all these > things where almost everyone agrees they should be different, but we can't > do it due to backwards compatibility reasons. Ideally with pointers to the > relevant www-style discussions. > > This would be very useful as part of the csswg wiki too, for two reasons: > > a) It would give everyone a better sight of the big picture as to whether a > version switch is really needed. > b) It would be a place we could point newcomers to, in order to avoid > discussing the same issues over and over again. > > Given Matt's passion, I think he would want to help with a draft version of > that list and a CSS WG member could take it from there. > > -- > Lea Verou (http://lea.verou.me | @LeaVerou) >
Received on Sunday, 19 February 2012 18:22:48 UTC