W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > June 2009

RE: Assoc SS issue list

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:01:04 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30210059C73@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Thanks, Simon.

I have added your preferences as notations to the document.
Let me know if I've misinterpreted anything.

A few comments within.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Pieters [mailto:simonp@opera.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 2009 June 23 6:02
> To: Grosso, Paul; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Assoc SS issue list
> 
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:07:16 +0200, Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > I had an action to produce an issues list for the Assoc SS spec,
> > outlining what I thought were the potential resolutions.
> >
> > I have done that.  Please see
> > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2009/06/assocss-issues.htm

> > and feel free (in fact, please feel compelled) to email the
> > list with your preferences, and I will add them to that document.
> > Likewise if you want to suggest another potential resolution
> > to be added to that document.
> >
> > If you are going to discuss an issue, please use the numbers
> > to refer to issues and potential resolutions.
> 
> I agree with 1 and 2.
> 
> For 3, I think a..d are non-options, since we have to support multiple
> links for CSS:
> 
>     <?xml-stylesheet href="data:text/css,x { color:blue }"?>
>     <?xml-stylesheet href="data:text/css,x { background:yellow }"?>
>     <x>This text should be blue on yellow background.</x>
> 
> I agree with 4, although I would prefer MUST rather than SHOULD.

Actually, I meant that too, so I've reworded that one.  I didn't use
2119 wording yet, but I expect we will when we get to actual wording.

> 
> For 5, I prefer g.
> 
> For 6, I prefer b.
> 
> For 7, I prefer a.
> 
> For 8, I prefer b. (We should say that it's equivalent to
> 'application/xml'.)
> 
> For 9, I prefer a.
> 
> For 10, I prefer b or c.iv. (We use MQ for CSS but ignore media=""
> altogether for XSLT.)
> 
> For 11, I prefer a or b.iv. (Note that b.1 is already covered in Web
> addresses.)
> 
> For 12, I don't mind a. (For CSS we would want to reflect updates, but
> for
> XSLT we ignore updates.)
> 
> For 13, I don't mind a.
> 
> For 14, I don't mind a.
> 
> 
> Another issue that I've maybe forgot to mention: we should change
> production [1] to only include the processing instruction's *data* and
> not
> the leading "<?xml-stylesheet " or trailing "?>". Why? For two reasons:
> 
>    1. Allow reuse of the syntax for other specs (e.g. XBL2).
>    2. An xml-stylesheet processor in reasonable implementations does
> not
> see the original character stream but instead a ProcessingInstruction
> object from the XML parser with a 'target' and a 'data'. (Actually when
> using DOM Core methods there is no character stream or XML parser
> involved
> at all.)
> 
> The production would instead be something like
> 
>     [1] PIData ::= PseudoAtt? (S PseudoAtt)* S?
> 
> 
> Then we could also remove the check for "?>" in the value in production
> [3].

I've added that to the document.

paul

> 
> --
> Simon Pieters
> Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 14:03:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 June 2009 14:03:55 GMT