W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > April 2010

Re: Transition Request: PER Request for Associating Style Sheets with XML documents 1.0 (Second Edition)

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:51:26 +0200
Message-ID: <4BC84F3E.9080100@disruptive-innovations.com>
To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Cc: timbl@w3.org, plh@w3.org, ralph@w3.org, liam@w3.org, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, w3t-comm@w3.org, chairs@w3.org, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Le 15/04/10 21:38, Grosso, Paul a écrit :

> Several editor's drafts of this Second Edition have been
> published, most recently that of 2010 March 22 at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2010/03/xml-stylesheet/
> and comments have been solicited and reflected in this
> latest draft PER as indicated in a Disposition of Comments at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2010/01/disposition.html.

I think I made a substantive comment ([2], [3] and [4)] about this last
editor's draft the very same day it was released, I quote, "for further
general review by W3C members" [1]. That comment could appear in DoC...
Am I the only one here seeing "for further general review" means "for
comments"?

I am maintaining my objection despite of Simon Pieters' personal
answer in first part of [5].

I think that saying xml-stylesheet is underspecified about the
media pseudo-attribute because a document that has even not reached
FPWD status may appear some time in the future is a flaw. It may
also not appear or be substantially changed. In the meantime, we have
an architectural issue that goes against commonly implemented practice
and leaves totally unspecified something that should be specified
because the Web as we know it deeply relies on it.
Please note that an xml-stylesheet- and CSS-conforming user agent may
decide to NOT implement the CSS OM, leaving this issue unresolved.
Not specifying the absence of the 'media' pseudo-attr was certainly,
seen from the CSS landscape, a mistake in the first xml-stylesheet REC
since no other spec specifies it.
It's then, seen from here, something that should be resolved as errata,
hence my refusal of Paul Grosso's answer in [6].
What does the lack of the 'media' pseudo-attr exactly mean? That
question remains open (since june 1999).


I'm fine with the answer about scoped stylesheets even if I regret it
and find it counter-productive.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2010JanMar/0100.html
[2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-stylesheet-comments/2010Mar/0000.html
[3] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-stylesheet-comments/2010Apr/0000.html
[4] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-stylesheet-comments/2010Apr/0002.html
[5] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-stylesheet-comments/2010Apr/0003.html
[6] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-stylesheet-comments/2010Apr/0001.html

</Daniel>
--
W3C CSS WG, Co-Chair
Received on Friday, 16 April 2010 11:52:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 16 April 2010 11:52:09 GMT