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

Daniel is correct that his comments (and objections) are not
yet reflected in the DoC referenced by my Transition Request email.

Daniel's comments came in a bit later than others, and there 
remains an outstanding action item for that DoC to be updated
accordingly, and I hadn't realized that action wasn't yet
completed when I sent in the transisition request.

I will push to get that action completed as soon as possible.

paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Glazman [mailto:daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com]
> Sent: Friday, 2010 April 16 6:51
> To: Grosso, Paul
> Cc: timbl@w3.org; plh@w3.org; ralph@w3.org; liam@w3.org; Ian Jacobs;
> w3t-comm@w3.org; chairs@w3.org; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Transition Request: PER Request for Associating Style
> Sheets with XML documents 1.0 (Second Edition)
> 
> 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 13:49:47 UTC