W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html-editor@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: [XHTML2] Spirit of "1.1.3. XHTML 2 and Presentation" (PR#7759)

From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 15:14:21 +0100
Message-ID: <43E9FCBD.5000109@cwi.nl>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Steven Pemberton <xhtml2-issues@hades.mn.aptest.com>, www-html-editor@w3.org

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Steven Pemberton wrote:
>>> XHTML2's "1.1.3. XHTML 2 and Presentation" section says:
>>> # XHTML 2 takes HTML back to these roots, by removing all presentation 
>>> # elements, and subordinating all presentation to style sheets.
>>> This, while technically true, does not seem completely consistent with the 
>>> inclusion of the style="" attribute (in section 27 XHTML Style Attribute 
>>> Module). I feel that the intent of removing all presentational aspects 
>>> from the language is to be applauded and would like to ask for the purely 
>>> presentational style="" attribute to be removed.
>>> If it is to remain in XHTML2, however, a clear indication of its purpose 
>>> should be given, so as to explain the conflict between its presence and 
>>> the sentiment of section 1.1.3.
>> The WG has decided to suspend this issue (ie decide whether to include 
>> the style attribute or not) until after last call.
> Um, it would seem that this issue would have to be resolved _before_ last 
> call, otherwise we could not make a complete review of the document during 
> last call. Therefore this does not satisfy my request.

Unfortunately, this is an issue where consensus hasn't been reached, 
There are people with very strong views on both sides. Originally we had 
no style attribute, and this brought strong complaints (principally from 
the CSS WG I should say).

The style attribute got added then, and that brought with it equally 
strong complaints from others.

Since we can't please both groups at once, since no new information has 
come in, and since can't keep ping ponging the attribute from draft to 
draft, we resolved to leave it as is, bring attention to the issue at 
last call, and revisit it then.

I'm sorry you are not satisfied, but it is either you or Daniel Glazman.

Best wishes,

Steven Pemberton
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2006 14:14:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:08:54 UTC