Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
> Why do you think the two interoperable implementations rule means we
> need to author mainstream CSS based on guesses about how future
> implementations will work?
The amount of guesswork can be kept at a minimum by checking up on
proposals, experimental implementations and other people's work once in
a while, but experience tells me two things:
1: features tend to get implemented based on plans, ease of
implementation and that there's a wish to see them implemented. We can't
always appreciate plans or how easy/hard it is, but we can back up our
wishes by testing what little there is and present the results.
2: the W3C test cases used to test implementations are accurate for a
property/value - in most cases, but exclude everything beyond that.
Unless properties/values are also tested in more challenging
environments - real world scenarios/designs - even pretty large
implementation-flaws may not get caught.
Having "interoperable" but more or less useless implementations hanging
around for a few years does not help on progress, so we may as well test
and report on various bug-lists, forums etc. to help speed up the
process towards true interoperability ever so slightly, whenever we see
the need for it. Different people automatically create different real
world scenarios/designs, so the more the better.
In short: I don't believe in sitting on the fence while waiting for
others to drive progress.
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
