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

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

From: Glenn A. Adams <gadams@xfsi.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:30:36 -0500
Message-ID: <7249D02C4D2DFD4D80F2E040E8CAF37C0E908D@longxuyen.xfsi.com>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
Cc: <public-tt@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:fora@annevankesteren.nl]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 2:56 AM
> To: Glenn A. Adams
> Cc: public-tt@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [DFXP LC Comment] Some questions (was: Re: [tt] Some
> questions)
> 
> 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] Sorry. Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I was inviting you to make a
persuasive argument for use of xml:id that I could take back to the WG.
I am not prepared to make such an argument, particularly since I am one
who would need to be convinced of using xml:id.
 
> 
> > [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

[GA] All information in DFXP is expressed using XML syntax. Style
information is one of 5 types of information which we distinguish: (1)
global parametric information; (2) content information; (3) style
information; (4) timing information; and (5) metadata information.

A requirement of TT AF was that all information be represented as XML.
We believe we have satisfied that requirement.

> 
> >>> * 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:
>   <http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1111107793&count=1>
> ... where on of the authors of CSS2.1 explains that CSS2 should
actually
> be CR.
>

[GA] The WG will take a consensus reading on your comment, however, I do
not anticipate any need for a change. By and large, the normative style
information in DFXP is based directly on XSL FO; only in the case of the
tts:display attribute is it necessary to normatively reference CSS2 at
all, since XSL FO does not define this property. It would make no
technical difference in DFXP whether CSS2.1 were referenced or CSS2 is
referenced.
 
> 
> >>> * 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
> compatible.

[GA] No. The use of different namespaces is to have different spaces in
which names reside where a need exists to maintain a controlled
vocabulary over each space, and where different namespaces have
different functional roles.
 
> 
> > [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?

[GA] As far as I'm aware, the use of a namespace URI is not normative
until the spec attains REC status. So, it may change, and users should
expect it to change to a final form. Nevertheless, I will research this
issue somewhat further to see if there is historical precedent either
way.

> 
> --
>   Anne van Kesteren
>   <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2005 13:30:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 2 November 2009 22:41:32 GMT