W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > March 2005

Re: [DFXP LC Comment] Some questions (was: Re: [tt] Some questions)

From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:55:33 +0100
Message-ID: <423FCF75.7070407@annevankesteren.nl>
To: "Glenn A. Adams" <gadams@xfsi.com>
CC: public-tt@w3.org

Glenn A. Adams wrote:
> If you wish to make a case for adopting xml:id, then I would be happy
> to present it to the TT WG.

Please do.

> [GA] It was a requirement of DFXP to represent all information, 
> including style information, using an XML syntax to permit the use of
> XML transformation and query technology such as XSLT and XQuery.

Why is such a thing needed for *styling*. AFAIK styling has nothing to
do with the semantics of the document nor can you extract meaning from it.

>>> * Why does the specification refer to CSS2, which has been
>>> revised?
> [GA] Because the referenced edition is the current REC listed on the 
> www.w3.org/TR page.

I suggest the WG points to CSS2.1 as well as that is the most current 
CSS2 specification. Please see also this weblog entry:
... where on of the authors of CSS2.1 explains that CSS2 should actually 
be CR.

>>> * Why does the specification has so many namespaces?
> [GA] In order to create naming partitions based on varying
> extensibility requirements. For example, we expect the primary
> namespace to be very stable and to have few or any extensions over
> time; however, we expect the TT Styling, TT Parameter, and TT
> Metadata namespaces to incur significant extensions of varying rates
> and purposes. Therefore, this usage is primarily intended to support
> evolution and maintenance of the TT AF document types.

Does this imply that the WG is planning to use namespaces for something 
they are not intended for, versioning? Please raise that as well with 
the WG, there are other (better) methods to make a language forward 

> [GA] The dates embedded in the namespace URIs will change (as
> indicated by the editorial note at the end of section 5.1), but the
> uses of different namespaces is not expected to change.

But will it change when the specification reaches CR and remain stable?

  Anne van Kesteren
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2005 07:56:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 5 October 2017 18:24:01 UTC