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

RE: AssocSS issue holman-1 and holman-2

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:55:05 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30211FD115C@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Pieters [mailto:simonp@opera.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 2010 January 14 8:31
> To: Grosso, Paul; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: AssocSS issue holman-1 and holman-2
> 
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 19:34:49 +0100, Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-stylesheet-

> comments/2009Dec/
> > 0002
> >
> > "is there any normative section that describes how a user agent
> > is to interpret the [pseudo-attribute] values?"
> >
> > and
> >
> > "what is the interpretation of the order of the links?"
> >
> >
> > First, I don't think this AssocSS spec should get into
> > interpreting the PA values normatively.  Likewise, the
> > interpretation of the order of links should be left to
> > the application (and may, in fact, differ for different
> > stylesheet languages).
> >
> > So I think the short answer to the first question is "no"
> > and to the second question is "not our problem."  Not that
> > I'm suggesting we say that.
> >
> >
> > My suggestion is to replace the last paragraph of section 4
> > with the following two paragraphs (underscores indicate
> > where linking-to-defns and such sort of markup needs to
> > be added):
> >
> >
> > An _xml-stylesheet processor_ passes the _parsing result_
> > on to the _application_ which is responsible for interpreting
> > the _parsing result_ and acting on that information.
> 
> I think this is ok.
> 
> 
> > The
> > semantics of the various _pseudo-attributes_ beyond the
> > semantics indicated above (directly and by reference to
> > another specification) follows that defined for the corresponding
> > attribute of the HTML 4.0 <LINK REL="stylesheet">[HTML40].
> 
> I thought we had agreed to not reference HTML4 for the semantics of the
> pseudo-attributes.

I'm not sure what I think here.  I thought Henry said on yesterday's
call that we should put back a reference to HTML 4.0.  Or maybe we
need to phrase it some other way.

I'm open to suggestions that address Ken's (first) issue.

> 
> > Any links to style sheets that are specified externally to
> > the document (e.g., Link headers in some versions of HTTP
> > [RFC2068]) are considered to create associations that occur
> > before the associations specified by the xml-stylesheet
> > processing instructions.  The _application_ is responsible
> > for taking all associations and--possibly depending on the
> > details of the associations (e.g., the language of the
> > associated stylesheets)--determine how, if at all, the
> > order of the associations affects its processing.
> 
> I think this is fine, although I'd also be fine with specifying the
> order.

We are specifying an order.  What we can't do is tell the application
what the order means.  In some cases, it will mean to use all of them,
and in other cases, it might mean to use the first and ignore the rest
or something else.

paul

Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 14:55:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 14 January 2010 14:55:39 GMT