W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > January 2013

Styles

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:38:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CABevsUHXnQgEZBi3GU7KaUpzdAt2GGqrhQeJA2U+N7XUGnJuoA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: public-openannotation@w3.org
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

>>> In addition to the lack of need for changing the doc (see above), I think
>>> this would have solved the issue: my problem was in fact if two
>>> annotations
>>> were targetting one resource with two different styles, and these two
>>> annotations have each their CssStyle.
>>> But as I understand now, the "one resource with two different styles"
>>> should
>>> actually be two resources (derived from the same segment).
>>
>>
>> Yes, there would be two Specific Resources, each with a styleClass and
>> the same Source. Example below.
>>
>> I think, though, that this does point out a failing in the
>> introduction of the module where it says that the Specific Resource is
>> the thing *before* processing the style.  The Specific Resource must
>> be the result of processing all of the descriptive properties,
>> including both style and scope.
>>
>> I propose changing the description in 3.1 to reflect this.
>
> Well, this was in fact what triggered me (and Stian) to argue for separating
> styles from the other specifiers.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openannotation/2013Jan/0099.html
> Fig 3.1.1 was a very clear motivator then, in fact.

Yes, "point out a"  should be "reinforces the"! :)


> Now if we all agree that specific resources can be the result of styling
> process too, then it would change quite drastically the validity of the
> comments we had then.

Indeed. What do others think?  This would be returning more to the
previous thinking that the Style really is an objective feature of the
specific resource, and not contextual information from the Annotation.

In other words, the Specific Resource with all of the specifiers would
identify a particular segment of a particular representation, rendered
in a certain way, and with reference to particular scoping resources.
Currently it's only State plus Selector, and the relationship with
Style and Scope is very unclear.

> Btw I note that the current future spec seems not to take into account the
> comments we made on optionality of specifiers. Maybe there's other stuff
> pending...

I wasn't sure if there was consensus on what to do -- leave it, remove
it, replace it... and then it fell through the cracks, so it's good
that the discussion came around again :)

Thanks!

Rob
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 16:38:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 29 January 2013 16:38:30 GMT