Tim Climis wrote:
The problem is not lack of standardization. The problem is that developers
want to use
properties that technically aren't part of the standard yet.
I respectfully disagree. The problem is not what the developers
/want/ us to do, but rather than there are far too many of
maj 10 2014 12:54 Philip Taylor p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk:
I respectfully disagree. The problem is not what the developers
/want/ us to do, but rather than there are far too many of us
who are only too eager to accede to their wishes. We are under no
obligation whatsoever to do anything that a
MiB wrote:
maj 10 2014 12:54 Philip Taylor p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk:
I prefer to wait until a specification becomes a formal
recommendation before adopting any part of it for production work.
Define formal.
Formal :
7.4.5 Publication of a W3C Recommendation
Document maturity level:
Howdy Tim,
~~~
Friday, May 9, 2014, 5:36:51 PM (USA 'Somewhere on-the-road time-zone'),
you wrote the message that appears below.
My reply appears here and/or interspersed within your message.
~~~
There is standardization.
What, then, of the divergence between W3C and WHATWG?
G'Jim c):{-
--
GJim wrote:
What, then, of the divergence between W3C and WHATWG?
There is W3C, and there is everybody else. WHATWG is nothing
more than a member of everybody else, no matter how great
its finite-but-unbounded sense of self-importance.
Philip Taylor
On Saturday, May 10, 2014 11:54:32 AM you wrote:
Tim Climis wrote:
The problem is not lack of standardization. The problem is that
developers want to use properties that technically aren't part of the
standard yet.
I respectfully disagree. The problem is not what the developers
/want/
On Saturday, May 10, 2014 08:57:36 AM GJim wrote:
There is standardization.
What, then, of the divergence between W3C and WHATWG?
I'm unaware of a WHATWG CSS standard (and it appears that Google
also doesn't know about it, so I'm questioning its existence). I know
that there are
maj 10 2014 16:54 Tim Climis tim.cli...@gmail.com:
but those are irrelevant to
this thread.
How did standards enter into a discussion on the role of (CSS) preprocessors
anyway? Preprocessors are largely operationally independent of standards — you
may choose to support them or not as usual
Howdy Philip,
~~~
Saturday, May 10, 2014, 9:02:51 AM (USA 'Somewhere on-the-road time-zone'),
you wrote the message that appears below.
My reply appears here and/or interspersed within your message.
~~~
GJim wrote:
What, then, of the divergence between W3C and WHATWG?
There is W3C, and
Eric:
Well, I am just thinking theoretically, but the standards refrain is, everyone
should meet the standards. And so css says, the code 'corners: rounded' or
'corners: spiked' is valid. But then the browsers fail to comply. They need it
to be, 'mozilla-corners: rounded', and then there are 8
There is standardization.
On Friday, May 09, 2014 09:15:46 AM Andrew C. Johnston wrote:
Eric:
Well, I am just thinking theoretically, but the standards refrain is,
everyone should meet the standards. And so css says, the code 'corners:
rounded' or 'corners: spiked' is valid. But then the
11 matches
Mail list logo
