- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:35:45 +0200 (EET)
- To: CSS validator list <www-validator-css@w3.org>
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, olivier Thereaux wrote: > The CSS working group considers that CSS2.1 includes errata for CSS2, and as > such, stylesheets that are invalid when checking against 2.1 are invalid > CSS2. I almost refrained from commenting on the announcement, which referred to CSS 2.1, which itself (the CSS 2.1 draft) says that it is improper to cite it as other than "work in progress". However, this notice is far too confused and confusing. The so-called "errata for CSS2" is a very mixed collection of notes ranging from minor typo fixes to vague comments saying that something should perhaps be done to something. It's not even close to a draft surrogate for a _specification_. Saying that a group "considers" that their draft "includes errata for CSS2" is false as a descriptive statement (it does not, include the errata, of course) and absurd as a prescriptive or interpretional statement, especially it is means that the CSS 2.1 draft has the power of changing the content of the CSS 2.0 specification. > My own opinion on the matter notwithstanding, I suggest you talk to > www-style if you disagree with that stance. Shouldn't the "CSS Validator" be based on some objective, published, stable criteria, or at least be clearly announced as a lint-type heuristic checker (which contains some rigorousness as well)? I don't think that various individuals' discussions in an informal open mailing list are the way to solve fundamental unstability and subjectivity. -- Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Monday, 18 December 2006 12:36:05 UTC