|
Posted by Steve Pugh on May 5, 2006, 3:44 am
Please log in for more thread options
>Toby Inkster wrote:
>> Nonsense. Firefox doesn't support, for example, 'font-size-adjust'[1] from
>> the CSS 2 spec, but doing so wouldn't make it less attractive to potential
>> users.
>>
>> And there are plenty[2] of other bug-fixes and improvements to standards
>> compliance that could be implemented without making it less attractive to
>> users.
>
>Unlike CSS1, CSS2.1 is just a working draft: "Publication as a Working
>Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft
>document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents
>at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than
>work in progress."
That's true as far as it goes, but CSS 2.1 is actually at the
Candidate Recommendation stage (a stage that didn't exist when CSS 1
was drafted) and regardless of its official status it's the closest
thing we have to a standard for CSS today.
>Besides some more or less stable parts, CSS 2.1 draft is also used as a
>dumpster for some of W3C' members nightly thoughts and revelations :-)
I think you may be getting confused with CSS 3.
>No one "real" UA producer could just grab such document *in whole* and
>rewrite the entire engine under it.
Well no, they have to be bugwards compatible with all the junk code
that's already out there as well. But all the major browser developers
are aiming to complete their support for CSS 2.1.
>The most promising features are being first taken as -moz extensions,
>and if proven to be usable and useful then eventually added to the main
>set (like -moz-opacity > opacity).
opaacity is in CSS 3 not CSS 2.1
>At the same time CSS 2.1 working draft contans a lot of nonsense which
>will never make into real life (and should be really removed right now
>so to not confuse developers' minds).
Care to give some more examples?
CSS 2.1 removed stuff from CSS 2 that wasn't supported by browsers.
CSS 2.1 only added a few things, mostly stuff that had already started
to be supported by browsers.
CSS 2.1 items that might be dropped due to poor browser support are a
rather short list. See 'Features at Risk' on the home page of the CSS
2.1 draft. So it looks like all the rest of the nonesense has already
been implemened by developers.
Again I think you're confusing CSS 2.1 with CSS 3.
>Say :before and :after pseudo-elements is an application of XBL
>(Mozilla) / Viewlink (Microsoft) but taken out of space, context and
>sense. The implications of autogenerated anonymous content (DOM tree,
>id's visibility scope etc.) is a big separate issue carefully treated
>in both mentioned technologies. But if one has no clue about the
>subject, then of course it's as simple as to add two new
>presudo-elements into specs.
If you look you'll see that :before and :after were already in CSS 2,
which became a recommendation in 1998, so I'm not sure that your
argument holds up on historical grounds let alone technical grounds.
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
| 
XML Sitemap