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 Although W3C procedures evidently prevent the Working Group from declaring 2.0 to have been superceded, as a practical matter, CSS 2.0 is no longer current.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 PROTECTED] 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/
