Previous Message
Next Message

Confused re: validation

Sent by Adam Kuehn on 15 March 2006 00:12


David Dorward wrote:
> > Not so sure about that, as "support by browsers" is no good if designers
> > are thrown off by being told "it isn't valid".
>
>OTOH is it such a good idea to encourage the use of new features which
>aren't yet stable in the spec?

My understanding of the state of the 2.1 spec is that it is stable 
with regard to new features: there won't be any.  At worst, there 
will be a deletion or two of properties that are in any case 
unsupported.  The W3C site itself "defaults" to CSS 2.1, as you can 
see on the CSS home page: <http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/>.  Note the 
menu links to versions 1, 2.1, and 3.  There is no direct link to the 
2.0 version.  Although unofficial, it may even be that the Working 
Group intends to skip the CR phase and move 2.1 from its current 
Working Draft status to a Proposed Recommendation.  See 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2005Dec/0164.html>. 
Although W3C procedures evidently prevent the Working Group from 
declaring 2.0 to have been superceded, as a practical matter, CSS 2.0 
is no longer current.  The 2.1 spec itself notes that it "is intended 
to replace CSS2", and it is the more accurate picture of current 
browser support (i.e. the more "commercially viable" version).

2.1 would be by far the better version default, IMO, and if there are 
any bored developers out there, I would encourage them to offer up a 
patch to fix that.

Meanwhile, it is probably OT for the list, except to note that the 
default is likely to give an unexpected result here and there.



-Adam Kuehn 

______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL-REMOVED]]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Previous Message
Next Message

Message thread: