active link in IE 6 and Opera 7

[Lauri Raittila]

Re: active link in IE 6 and Opera 7

Dr John Stockton wrote:[color=blue]
> JRS: In article <109vn42g781gge 8@corp.supernew s.com>, seen in
> news:comp.infos ystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Brian <usenet3@juliet re
> mblay.com.inval id> posted at Mon, 10 May 2004 15:47:29 :[color=green]
> >Dr John Stockton wrote:[color=darkred]
> >> JRS: Neal:[/color]
> >[color=darkred]
> >>> Dr John Stockton wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> that is the first reference to a FAQ that I recall.
> >>>>
> >>>> how should one find it?
> >>>
> >>> search Google for 'FAQ
> >>> group:comp.info systems.www.aut horing.styleshe ets' and it'll pop up
> >>> in less than a minute.
> >>
> >> That's all very well; but I would never have thought to include
> >> "group:".[/color]
> >
> >But you wouldn't have to.
> >
> >http://www.google.com/search?q=ciwas%20faq[/color]
>
> But that's a different search to the one Neal advised. Why should a
> recent arrival be expected to think of using an acronym?[/color]

well

http://gogle.de/search?q=comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets%20faq

[color=blue][color=green]
> >If the op's question was already answered in the faq -- even one that is
> >5 years old -- doesn't it make sense to mention it? I'd rather get an
> >answer almost immediately on the web than wait for a response on usenet.[/color]
>
> True; but what if it is mentioned only in the more recent versions, or
> there is a correction to the answer?[/color]

What more recent version?
[color=blue]
> If one is seeking the FAQ of a newsgroup, one wants, initially, the
> latest version, and hopes that it is currently maintained.[/color]

AFAIK, that is the latest version.
[color=blue][color=green]
> >STW. It's the first link. And question 9 in that first link answers the
> >op's question.[/color]
>
> But you still have not given the URL, although you have evidently seen
> it.[/color]

http://css.nu/faq/ciwas-mFAQ.html

http://css.nu/faq/ciwas-aFAQ.html

[color=blue]
> Remember that a dial-up user only has intermittent Web access.[/color]

WEll, remember that dial-up is not excuse.
[color=blue]
> ISTM that this newsgroup no longer has an effective newsgroup FAQ,
> although in the past it may well have had.[/color]

Well, it's updated rarely, and posted almost as rarely... Fortunately
maintainer had good policy on what to take in FAQ, so it is still quite
relevant

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
I'm looking for work | Etsin työtä

[Brian]

Re: active link in IE 6 and Opera 7

Dr John Stockton wrote:
[color=blue]
> Brian:
>[color=green]
>> Dr John Stockton wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Neal:
>>>> search Google for 'FAQ
>>>> group:comp.info systems.www.aut horing.styleshe ets'
>>>
>>> That's all very well; but I would never have thought to include
>>> "group:".[/color]
>>
>> But you wouldn't have to.
>>
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=ciwas%20faq[/color]
>
> But that's a different search to the one Neal advised. Why should a
> recent arrival be expected to think of using an acronym?[/color]

Are you for real?

http://www.google.com/search?q=comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets%20faq

You should have tried that yourself before making foolish arguments
about acronyms.
[color=blue]
> True; but what if it is mentioned only in the more recent versions,
> or there is a correction to the answer?[/color]

What if, what if, what if. The point is not what if, but what *is*. The
answer the op needed is in the faq. If you ask me, you're just trolling
now. The OP didn't complain that he couldn't find the faq. Why are you?
[color=blue]
> But you still have not given the URL, although you have evidently
> seen it.[/color]

Actually, among several posters in this thread, we've provided *several*
trivial Google searches to find the faq. If you can't get to the faq
using one of the suggested searches, too bad. In short, STFW.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)

http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Dr John Stockton]

Re: active link in IE 6 and Opera 7

JRS: In article <10a2ecq6lg4t2f d@corp.supernew s.com>, seen in
news:comp.infos ystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Brian <usenet3@juliet re
mblay.com.inval id> posted at Tue, 11 May 2004 16:36:59 :
[color=blue]
> The OP didn't complain that he couldn't find the faq. Why are you?[/color]

Because I was not attempting to assist the OP directly, but was
addressing in my first paragraph the unsatisfactory nature of part of
your reply and in my second the lack of information in the newsgroup
about what some people claim to be the FAQ of the newsgroup.

Judging by what appears to be a copy of its most recent posting, it is
no longer a maintained FAQ :
Posting-Frequency: twice a week (mondays and thursdays)
Last-modified: March 10, 2001
and Sec 7 has no mention of later browsers.

You yourself observed that the OP had apparently not used the FAQ; and
so he had probably not found it, whether or not he had thought of
seeking it. But advising him to read the FAQ did not appear to help
him; and I cannot see which of the nine sections, except maybe Sec 5,
you might have thought would be helpful. You might, indeed, even have
been inadvertently thinking of a different FAQ.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ???@merlyn.demo n.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
Dates - miscdate.htm Year 2000 - date2000.htm Critical Dates - critdate.htm
Euro computing - eurocash.htm UK Y2k mini-FAQ: y2k_mfaq.txt Don't Mail News

[Brian]

Re: active link in IE 6 and Opera 7

Dr John Stockton wrote:
[color=blue]
> Because I was not attempting to assist the OP directly, but was
> addressing in my first paragraph the unsatisfactory nature of part of
> your reply and in my second the lack of information in the newsgroup
> about what some people claim to be the FAQ of the newsgroup.[/color]

Read: "I was trolling. And I was getting hits, too."

So good for you.
[color=blue]
> I cannot see which of the nine sections, except maybe Sec 5, you
> might have thought would be helpful.[/color]

http://css.nu/faq/ciwas-aFAQ.html

(first hit for Google search of "ciwas faq")
Question 9 is directly on point:

"Why is it my ':hover' declaration for links does not work ?"

Heck, just for you, here's the fragment id link where you'll find the
answer:

http://css.nu/faq/ciwas-aFAQ.html#QA09

[color=blue]
> You might, indeed, even have been inadvertently thinking of a
> different FAQ.[/color]

No, but perhaps you were.

Bye.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)

http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Dr John Stockton]

Re: active link in IE 6 and Opera 7

JRS: In article <10a4n9ml2pbpn4 7@corp.supernew s.com>, seen in
news:comp.infos ystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Brian <usenet3@juliet re
mblay.com.inval id> posted at Wed, 12 May 2004 13:21:08 :[color=blue]
>
>http://css.nu/faq/ciwas-aFAQ.html
>(first hit for Google search of "ciwas faq")
>Question 9 is directly on point:
>
>"Why is it my ':hover' declaration for links does not work ?"[/color]

That is not in what I so far have found.

[color=blue]
>Heck, just for you, here's the fragment id link where you'll find the
>answer:
>
>http://css.nu/faq/ciwas-aFAQ.html#QA09[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> You might, indeed, even have been inadvertently thinking of a
>> different FAQ.[/color]
>
>No, but perhaps you were.[/color]


Indeed. By searching for the FAQ, I found a document headed "comp.infos
ystems.www.authoring.stylesheets FAQ v1.95" which I took to be the FAQ.

In searching for the string "FAQ" in it, I now find that it refers to
itself both as FAQ and as meta-FAQ, and that there is one link to
"aFAQ", buried in the centre of Section 5.

A meta-FAQ should never describe itself as a FAQ, and should have
_conspicuous_ links to any corresponding true FAQ.

Moreover, it is the meta-FAQ which is stored in /www.faqs.org/ (also
found by search).

The situation is therefore most unsatisfactory, and the meta-FAQ needs
update to make the distinction clear at _all_ points within it,
including the news header, which includes
Archive-name: www/stylesheets/newsgroup-faq

The actual FAQ may well need similar attention.

Since a newsgroup FAQ should be responsive at least to what is
currently, rather than historically, asked in the newsgroup, it will be
of interest to see whether the maintainer sees these remarks and posts a
clarified version.


You have provided clear evidence supporting my belief that, whenever a
FAQ is cited as a source of advice, there is a need for one or both of
(a) an authoritative, direct, tested URL, (b) a statement like "recently
posted here".

ISTM that it would help if a few of the regulars were to include the
current FAQ URL in their applicable sig files.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon. co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://jibbering.com/faq/> Jim Ley's FAQ for news:comp.lang. javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.

[Jan Roland Eriksson]

About ciwas FAQ's (Was:Re: active link in IE 6 and Opera 7)

On Thu, 13 May 2004 18:19:56 +0100, Dr John Stockton
<spam@merlyn.de mon.co.uk> wrote:

[...fragments from previous posters...][color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>You might, indeed, even have been inadvertently thinking
>>>of a different FAQ.[/color]
>>No, but perhaps you were.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>Indeed. By searching for the FAQ, I found a document headed "comp.infos
>ystems.www.authoring.stylesheets FAQ v1.95" which I took to be the FAQ.[/color]

That is the "meta-FAQ" which was the first one to be written and it has
as its purpose to describe this newsgroup, not to address CSS authoring
issues.

Admittedly it contains some outdated material today, primarily I would
chose to drop Q&A's #7 and probably also #8 all together. On top of that
Q&A #5 needs an update, I suspect that I do have quite a bit of "link
rot" in there by now.
[color=blue]
>A meta-FAQ should never describe itself as a FAQ, and should have
>_conspicuous _ links to any corresponding true FAQ.[/color]

For what its worth, the mFAQ was originally modeled after the guidelines
given in the document "FAQs about FAQs"...

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/faqs/about-faqs/

....and was first peer reviewed here in this NG in 1999 IMMIC.

At the same time I had a conversation with David Alex Lamb (a long time
*.answers moderator) who gave me a few extra suggestions about how to
finalize the mFAQ into an *.answers approved status.

As one example, the archive names...

Archive-name: www/stylesheets/newsgroup-faq
Archive-name: www/stylesheets/authoring-faq

....was suggested by David along with a few other formalia.
[color=blue]
>Moreover, it is the meta-FAQ which is stored in /www.faqs.org/[/color]

Any one who knows how to locate FAQ's for specific NG's at
/www.faqs.org/ would know how setup this following link...

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgroup/comp/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets.html

You will find that both the mFAQ and the aFAQ are properly archived.
[color=blue]
>The situation is therefore most unsatisfactory, and the meta-FAQ needs
>update to make the distinction clear at _all_ points within it,
>including the news header, which includes
> Archive-name: www/stylesheets/newsgroup-faq[/color]

What exact "distinctio n" needs to be made?
And I insist to say that the archive names are active and correct.
[color=blue]
>The actual FAQ may well need similar attention.[/color]

They both need to be updated, I fully agree with that.
[color=blue]
>Since a newsgroup FAQ should be responsive at least to what is
>currently, rather than historically, asked in the newsgroup,[/color]

Well, from what started this it seems like the Q&A #9 in the aFAQ is not
really "historical ". The question about how to get :hover to "work" is a
real survivor I would say.
[color=blue]
>it will be of interest to see whether the maintainer sees these
>remarks and posts a clarified version.[/color]

I'm very much alive as you may have found out now; also I do have a
solid reason as to why the content of the ciwas FAQ's has been
"neglected" for some period of time [1].
[color=blue]
>You have provided clear evidence supporting my belief that, whenever
>a FAQ is cited as a source of advice, there is a need for one or both
>of (a) an authoritative, direct, tested URL,[/color]

For this particular question about :hover, a pointer straight into the
CSS2.1 spec would have been sufficient...

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/selector.html#dynamic-pseudo-classes

....it's right there, in "brown on white" :-)
[color=blue]
>(b) a statement like "recently posted here".[/color]

Q&A #9 in the aFAQ came in there as a result of people trying to use
:hover in the first implementation that tried to support :hover

That was many years ago now, but still we find that those in need of an
explanation do not like to read specs to find an answer.
[color=blue]
>ISTM that it would help if a few of the regulars were to include the
>current FAQ URL in their applicable sig files.[/color]

I used to post the _original_ text version of these two FAQ lists, twice
a week, to this NG but had to stop doing that at some time in 2002. I do
have the intention to update both lists and restart scheduled posting of
them.

[1] I was asked to take on the technical coordination, and later also
the site management, of a $40 million project for "North American
Stainless" in Kentucky US. That project kept me excessively occupied
from March 2002 until end of December 2003. There was no time available
to maintain FAQ lists for ciwas during that period of time, sad to say.

HAND

--
Rex

[Wolfgang Wildeblood]

Re: About ciwas FAQ's (Was:Re: active link in IE 6 and Opera 7)

Jan Roland Eriksson <rex@css.nu> wrote:
[color=blue]
> For this particular question about :hover, a pointer straight into the
> CSS2.1 spec would have been sufficient...
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/selector....pseudo-classes[/color]

Quote:
"It will remain Candidate Recommendation at least until 1 September
2004.

"Publicatio n as a Candidate Recommendation does not imply endorsement
by the W3C Membership. It is inappropriate to cite this document as
other than work in progress."

[color=blue]
> ...it's right there, in "brown on white" :-)[/color]

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

Re: active link in IE 6 and Opera 7

Dr John Stockton wrote:[color=blue]
> Since a newsgroup FAQ should be responsive at least to what is
> currently, rather than historically, asked in the newsgroup, it will be
> of interest to see whether the maintainer sees these remarks and posts a
> clarified version.[/color]

What's stopping you from offering a couple volunteer hours each week to
keep the FAQ up to date?


Matthias

[Rijk van Geijtenbeek]

Re: About ciwas FAQ's (Was:Re: active link in IE 6 and Opera 7)

On 14 May 2004 03:16:16 -0700, Wolfgang Wildeblood
<wolfgangwildeb lood@yahoo.com. au> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Jan Roland Eriksson <rex@css.nu> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> For this particular question about :hover, a pointer straight into the
>> CSS2.1 spec would have been sufficient...
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/selector....pseudo-classes[/color]
>
> Quote:
> "It will remain Candidate Recommendation at least until 1 September
> 2004.
>
> "Publicatio n as a Candidate Recommendation does not imply endorsement
> by the W3C Membership. It is inappropriate to cite this document as
> other than work in progress."[/color]

Yeah right... But read this from the CSS 2.0 spec:

"This document is currently not maintained. The CSS working group is
developing CSS 2.1. When features common to CSS2 and CSS 2.1 are defined
differently, please consider the definition in CSS 2.1 as errata for CSS2.
While CSS 2.1 is still a Working Draft, the errata are to be considered
proposed errata."

http://www.w3.org/Style/css2-updates/REC-CSS2-19980512-errata.html

At this moment, CSS 2.1 is much closer to what actually works in browsers
(and clearer, etc) then CSS 2.0.

--
Rijk van Geijtenbeek

The Web is a procrastination apparatus:
It can absorb as much time as is required to ensure that you
won't get any real work done. - J.Nielsen

[Wolfgang Wildeblood]

Is CSS 2 a W3C recommendation, or not? (was: About ciwas FAQs)

"Rijk van Geijtenbeek" <rijk@opera.com > wrote:
[color=blue]
> On 14 May 2004 03:16:16 -0700, Wolfgang Wildeblood
> <wolfgangwildeb lood@yahoo.com. au> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Jan Roland Eriksson <rex@css.nu> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> For this particular question about :hover, a pointer straight into the
> >> CSS2.1 spec would have been sufficient...
> >>
> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/selector....pseudo-classes[/color]
> >
> > Quote:
> > "It will remain Candidate Recommendation at least until 1 September
> > 2004.
> >
> > "Publicatio n as a Candidate Recommendation does not imply endorsement
> > by the W3C Membership. It is inappropriate to cite this document as
> > other than work in progress."[/color]
>
> Yeah right... But read this from the CSS 2.0 spec:
>
> "This document is currently not maintained. The CSS working group is
> developing CSS 2.1. When features common to CSS2 and CSS 2.1 are defined
> differently, please consider the definition in CSS 2.1 as errata for CSS2.
> While CSS 2.1 is still a Working Draft, the errata are to be considered
> proposed errata."[/color]

Oddly enough, my copy of CSS 2 says no such thing. Perhaps the
documentation on the W3C website has been sneakily altered, as tends
to happen from time to time.

And what does a phrase like, "This document is currently not
maintained," mean anyway? Not currently subject to continual review
and change? (a bit like the ciwas FAQ?) Perhaps those who like to push
the "standards" myth will one day get it through their heads that the
first requirement for a standard is not ease-of-use but *stability*.

[color=blue]
> At this moment, CSS 2.1 is much closer to what actually works in browsers
> (and clearer, etc) than CSS 2.0.[/color]

Publication of a document that described the subset of CSS 2 that was
implementable and omitted the flights of fancy would have been useful,
had it been done in a timely manner. But CSS 1.5 (strangely named "CSS
2.1") has been dawdling along for years now, and is no more an
accurate description of what browsers actually do than CSS 2 is. (Most
browsers implement several features proposed for CSS 3.)

Or does, "This document is currently not maintained," actually mean
that W3C have recanted CSS 2 as a "recommendation " (or as their
apologists often claim, a "standard") . Is CSS 2 currently a W3C
recommendation, or is it not? If CSS 1 is superceded, CSS 2 recanted,
CSS 2.1 a "work in progress", and the various CSS 3 modules merely
proposals for experimental implementation, where then is the mythical
"standard"?

Where is the document describing the "standards compliant code" that
innocent passers-by to this newsgroup are frequently being harangued
for failing to meet?

[Rijk van Geijtenbeek]

Re: Is CSS 2 a W3C recommendation, or not? (was: About ciwas FAQs)

On 14 May 2004 22:44:50 -0700, Wolfgang Wildeblood
<wolfgangwildeb lood@yahoo.com. au> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Rijk van Geijtenbeek" <rijk@opera.com > wrote:
>[color=green]
>> On 14 May 2004 03:16:16 -0700, Wolfgang Wildeblood
>> <wolfgangwildeb lood@yahoo.com. au> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> > Jan Roland Eriksson <rex@css.nu> wrote:
>> >
>> >> For this particular question about :hover, a pointer straight into[/color]
>> the[color=darkred]
>> >> CSS2.1 spec would have been sufficient...
>> >>
>> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/selector....pseudo-classes
>> >
>> > Quote:
>> > "It will remain Candidate Recommendation at least until 1 September
>> > 2004.
>> >
>> > "Publicatio n as a Candidate Recommendation does not imply endorsement
>> > by the W3C Membership. It is inappropriate to cite this document as
>> > other than work in progress."[/color]
>>
>> Yeah right... But read this from the CSS 2.0 spec:
>>
>> "This document is currently not maintained. The CSS working group is
>> developing CSS 2.1. When features common to CSS2 and CSS 2.1 are defined
>> differently, please consider the definition in CSS 2.1 as errata for
>> CSS2.
>> While CSS 2.1 is still a Working Draft, the errata are to be considered
>> proposed errata."[/color]
>
> Oddly enough, my copy of CSS 2 says no such thing. Perhaps the
> documentation on the W3C website has been sneakily altered, as tends
> to happen from time to time.[/color]

The URL you snipped made clear this was the Errate to the CSS2, and the
quote applied to the Errata. Which means that the WG is no longer trying
to clearify issues in the CSS 2 spec, but instead only working on getting
CSS 2.1 out of the door. As this has now reached CR status, it means they
are almost done. This production was followed by a large crowd in the
www-style mailing list, which did not speed up the process.
[color=blue]
> And what does a phrase like, "This document is currently not
> maintained," mean anyway? Not currently subject to continual review
> and change? (a bit like the ciwas FAQ?) Perhaps those who like to push
> the "standards" myth will one day get it through their heads that the
> first requirement for a standard is not ease-of-use but *stability*.[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> At this moment, CSS 2.1 is much closer to what actually works in
>> browsers (and clearer, etc) than CSS 2.0.[/color]
>
> Publication of a document that described the subset of CSS 2 that was
> implementable and omitted the flights of fancy would have been useful,
> had it been done in a timely manner. But CSS 1.5 (strangely named "CSS
> 2.1") has been dawdling along for years now, and is no more an
> accurate description of what browsers actually do than CSS 2 is. (Most
> browsers implement several features proposed for CSS 3.)[/color]

I think CSS 2.1 is a good base on which CSS 3 can extend in a more modular
manner. Yes, it would have been great if it had been ready a year ago. But
such discussions are not exactly fruitful.
[color=blue]
> Or does, "This document is currently not maintained," actually mean
> that W3C have recanted CSS 2 as a "recommendation " (or as their
> apologists often claim, a "standard") . Is CSS 2 currently a W3C
> recommendation, or is it not? If CSS 1 is superceded, CSS 2 recanted,
> CSS 2.1 a "work in progress", and the various CSS 3 modules merely
> proposals for experimental implementation, where then is the mythical
> "standard"?
>
> Where is the document describing the "standards compliant code" that
> innocent passers-by to this newsgroup are frequently being harangued
> for failing to meet?[/color]

Browsers should (and do) indicate which standards they support, standards
don't support browsers.

--
Rijk van Geijtenbeek

The Web is a procrastination apparatus:
It can absorb as much time as is required to ensure that you
won't get any real work done. - J.Nielsen

[Jim Ley]

Re: Is CSS 2 a W3C recommendation, or not? (was: About ciwas FAQs)

On Sat, 15 May 2004 12:16:16 +0200, "Rijk van Geijtenbeek"
<rijk@opera.com > wrote:
[color=blue]
>The URL you snipped made clear this was the Errate to the CSS2, and the
>quote applied to the Errata. Which means that the WG is no longer trying
>to clearify issues in the CSS 2 spec, but instead only working on getting
>CSS 2.1 out of the door.[/color]

Er, The W3C Process specifically requires Working Groups to track,
clarify etc. issues raised against the specification, if they're
really not going to do this, they should ask the director to rescind
the recommendation, as they clearly believe it to be so broken as to
not be worth maintaining.

There is a flaw in the process document is that there's no time limit
specificied on responding to issues (so they can just ignore them
forever into the future) but hopefully that'll be fixed one day...

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: Is CSS 2 a W3C recommendation, or not? (was: About ciwas FAQs)

"Rijk van Geijtenbeek" <rijk@opera.com > wrote:
[color=blue]
> The URL you snipped made clear this was the Errate to the CSS2, and
> the quote applied to the Errata.[/color]

So we have a CSS 2 specification, which refers to its Errata, which in
turn makes an obscure reference to CSS 2.1 and then says it's a draft and
should be considered as "proposed errata".

The question remains whether there is a W3C Recommendation on CSS (except
CSS 1). The CSS 2.1 contains substantial _changes_ to CSS 2.0, thereby
making CSS 2.0 itself a mixture containing things that are just
"proposed". Take any issue where the text of CSS 2.0 and the CSS 2.1
draft disagree. Today, it resolves according to the current CSS 2.1
draft. Tomorrow, CSS 2.1 draft might say something quite different on the
issue. We could alternatively say that CSS 2.0 keeps changing. Nobody can
honestly claim conformance to it, except by referring to its state on a
given moment of time.
[color=blue]
> Which means that the WG is no
> longer trying to clearify issues in the CSS 2 spec,[/color]

Errata aren't for clarifying issues. They are for reporting observed
typos and similar errors in documentation (roughly the way
http://www.rfc-editor.org/ maintains the RFC system, _without_ taking any
liberties in deciding that some definition was an "error" and "fixing" it
on a rainy afternoon).

But I think this has been explained and ignored on the www-style list, so
I can just state that the answer is that the CSS 2 "specification" , far
from being a standard, is a vague collection of ideas and rules that may
change at any moment without prior or posterior notification. The
reference to CSS 2.1 itself is just something that someone put into the
"Errata" at some point. It could be removed or changed today.
[color=blue]
> but instead only
> working on getting CSS 2.1 out of the door. As this has now reached
> CR status, it means they are almost done.[/color]

Let me guess... it will have its own Errata, which will contain a
cocktail of specific corrections of typos, actual changes to the rules,
and vague notes about something that needs revision.
[color=blue]
> Browsers should (and do) indicate which standards they support,[/color]

They cannot, unless there are standards. You cannot claim support to a
moving target. If a "specificat ion" requires A today and B tomorrow and A
and B are two different renderings of the same construct, you can't make
a browser conform.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Rijk van Geijtenbeek]

Re: Is CSS 2 a W3C recommendation, or not? (was: About ciwas FAQs)

On Thu, 20 May 2004 23:21:08 +0000 (UTC), Jukka K. Korpela
<jkorpela@cs.tu t.fi> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Rijk van Geijtenbeek" <rijk@opera.com > wrote:[/color]

...
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Browsers should (and do) indicate which standards they support,[/color]
>
> They cannot, unless there are standards. You cannot claim support to a
> moving target. If a "specificat ion" requires A today and B tomorrow and A
> and B are two different renderings of the same construct, you can't make
> a browser conform.[/color]

What should the WG do? Make dozens of CSS 2.x subreleases, one for each
time something comes up that needs clarification or appears to be designed
badly? Try to create the perfect spec before setting it free? CSS 2.0 was
too ambitious, but at the time it came out the WG was not receiving much
feedback on the www-style mailinglist. With CSS 2.1, they try to create
something more solid, and that is why it takes so much time. There is also
a large number of proposed CSS 3 modules for continued development of CSS.
There is little reason to suspect that CSS 2.1 will need lots of errata
(of the bad kind).

--
Rijk van Geijtenbeek

The Web is a procrastination apparatus:
It can absorb as much time as is required to ensure that you
won't get any real work done. - J.Nielsen

[Jim Ley]

Re: Is CSS 2 a W3C recommendation, or not? (was: About ciwas FAQs)

On Fri, 21 May 2004 16:56:28 +0200, "Rijk van Geijtenbeek"
<rijk@opera.com > wrote:
[color=blue]
>On Thu, 20 May 2004 23:21:08 +0000 (UTC), Jukka K. Korpela
><jkorpela@cs.t ut.fi> wrote:[color=green]
>> They cannot, unless there are standards. You cannot claim support to a
>> moving target. If a "specificat ion" requires A today and B tomorrow and A
>> and B are two different renderings of the same construct, you can't make
>> a browser conform.[/color]
>
>What should the WG do? Make dozens of CSS 2.x subreleases, one for each
>time something comes up that needs clarification or appears to be designed
>badly?[/color]

Rescind it, or at the very least don't change it with Erratas.
[color=blue]
>Try to create the perfect spec before setting it free? CSS 2.0 was
>too ambitious, but at the time it came out the WG was not receiving much
>feedback on the www-style mailinglist.[/color]

Did it have 1 implementation of every feature?
[color=blue]
> With CSS 2.1, they try to create
>something more solid, and that is why it takes so much time.[/color]

Sure, it's all too ambitious, but that means, stop being so ambitious
and do what you can with the resources you have available.

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/