> So with the semi-OT talk of standards over on cf-talk
It might be better to continue here :-)
> Standards don't exist.
/me looks at the pile of paper to his left
Please don't tell me I am imagining things that aren't really there.
> They are a frumious Bandersnatch. We can write the words and they can even
> have some kind of meaning to people, but they either don't seem to have
> the same meaning to everyone or they simply only exist as words and will
> never be seen in reality.
As long as people accept products that don't follow standards those products will be provided. The question is, how long will people continue to accept that?
Suppose you buy this great new video card which supports OpenGL. But due to some driver issue in some cases the card crashes. Do you accept that, or do you return it? Why do people continue to accept defective products in one case, and not in another case?
> So what browsers support this CSS2 declaration that was ratified over 5
> years ago? None.
What user agent claims conformance with CSS Level 2?
I try to stick to versions of the standard that user agents claim to support. For instance, at least one major browser manufacturer claims "Full CSS Level 1 Support": http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/evaluation/features/default.asp#e
(Have you ever tried calling their tech support why certain CSS Level 1 properties don't work? Keep asking for more senior staff, and before you know it, you will be called a "troublemaker", asking for "things we can not admit because it would expose us to litigation".)
BTW I think it would be helpfull if the W3 were to:
- make the core specifications smaller
- split the rest in packages
- published conformity tests
- added features first to packages, and only to core after stabilization
Jochem
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
