W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > September 2009

Re: [CSSWG] Release Candidate for CSS Namespaces Test Suite

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:18:10 +0200
To: "Leif Halvard Silli" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: public-css-testsuite@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.u00vck1x64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:03:06 +0200, Leif Halvard Silli  
<xn--mlform-iua@målform.no> wrote:
> I just argued, in a reply to Øyvind, that it is. It would be nice to  
> know exactly why it is not an error - if it isn't one.

It is not an error per the grammar or the prose of Selectors. Such rules  
need to be rejected.


>>  This has nothing to do with the @namespace construct.
>
> If you want *.class{} to select an element inside a SVG file - or  
> section, then it is useful to have a test that shows that
>
>     svgNamespaceLinkedPrefix|*.class{}
>
> works, no?

Ah, I thought you meant something else. I suppose we could add that, yes.


>>> 5. The XMLNS namespace, is it necessary to declare it?
>>
>>  Yes. There's nothing in the CSS namespaces draft that suggests it is   
>> special. CSS namespaces are independent of XML namespaces.
>
> Ok. Do you then agree that tests that catches the error which Firefox is  
> currently having, is needed?

Sure, if you contribute one.


>>> 6. The XML namespace, is it necessary to declare it via @namespace?
>>
>>  Yes.
>
> Same note as above: do you agree that tests that catches the Firefox  
> error is needed?

Sure.


> I can assure you that I wrote an "å" (&aring;) and not "%C3%A5" nor  
> "%E5".  It is the user agent's and the OS's task to convert it into  
> punycode after you have clicked the URL. I've experienced trouble with  
> this myself, though. Based on that experience, chances are that either  
> your mail client or your OS might be helping you too much, too little or  
> not enough ...
>
> Anyone: you can use 'malform.no' instead.

Yeah, it seems to be my email client. Annoying.


>>> 9. text/html namespace tests!
>>
>>  Since HTML5 is far away and it is not strictly needed I'd rather  
>> avoid  testing this for now and assume it will work down the road given  
>> that the  DOM model is identical.
>
> Well, I would argue the opposite - and I would not mix HTML 5 into the  
> issue at all (even if I perhaps did ...):
>
>    * In order to prove that CSS @namespace is completely unrelated to  
> the namespaces of the host language, it would be useful to have tests  
> for text/html. Text/html is here today.
>    * Also, I guess one may already link the same CSS file to both XHTML  
> and HTML - and SVG etc - files. So it is already relevant.
>
> It is also very simple: The two tests pages I made are identical (except  
> for one line of info in the start) - they are just served differently.   
> I guess you don't say no thanks, if I offer them ...

Since the requirements of namespaces in the HTML DOM are changing between  
HTML4 and HTML5 and user agents are somewhere in middle collectively it  
seems unwise to test this until the new approach is fully done. The new  
approach happens to be named HTML5.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 14:18:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 September 2010 17:51:58 GMT