W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 2002

Re: Why the STYLE element (and attrib) shall not be in XHTML2 (Was:Re: Why is the style tag restricted to the head?)

From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 10:53:13 -0700
To: <www-html@w3.org>, <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B9794F98.15020%tantek@cs.stanford.edu>

On 8/9/02 9:05 AM, "Jan Roland Eriksson" <jrexon@newsguy.com> wrote:

> 
> On Fri, 09 Aug 2002 16:48:17 +0200, you wrote in  www-style@w3.org :
> 
> [ fup's to www-html@w3.org ; crossed to www-style@w3.org ]
> 
>> Joshua Prowse wrote in www-style@w3.org :
>>> What reason is there for restricting the style tag to the head
>>> of the document?
>>> Why not allow it anywhere in the document so that <style> tags that are
>>> placed
>>> lower override earlier ones?
>> 
>> In other words: 'Why We Need to Improve the Style Attribute' (by Eric Meyer):
>>  <http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/559>
>> Steffen Goeldner
> 
> The original thread started on the style list with the post referenced
> on top of this entry of mine, and the last comment so far in that
> thread is from Steffen. All of you who are interested in the subject
> may want to recall that thread.
> 
> Eric's article, as good as it may stand, addresses a situation only
> from an authors point of view and mentions "Structuralists" as if they
> are a separate breed :)

Well, in my experience they (structuralists) are, although Eric's term is
much nicer than some I have used.

Content authoring languages should focus on solving content authoring
problems.  Structuralism is purely secondary - it is a means to an end,
nothing more.  Structuralists appear to be under the illusion that the
inverse is true.

> Remember that XML does not allow for a direct inclusion of CDATA
> content in elements, all content must at least be treated as #PCDATA.
> The only way available to include CDATA content in an XML document is
> through a 'CDATA marked section'.

Which is precisely how <style> elements work in XHTML already.  E.g. view
source on this:

http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS3/Selectors/current/xhtml/tests/css3-mod
sel-1.xml

> Or alternatively; can the CSS-WG give a 100% guarantee

Hah! 

A W3C working group give a 100% guarantee?

How can you expect this, when most W3C working groups can't even provide
test suites for their specifications (especially most of those X**** specs
that "structuralists" are so happy to have never-ending academic discussions
about - and don't get me started on DOM)?  And how can you believe claims of
"implementation" experience that are used to exit CR without test suites
which can at least minimally verify those implementations?

Guarantees? No.

But WGs DO try to follow design principles, and their charters of course.

> that nothing
> that can be written in a stylesheet (in any styling language in fact)
> contains a character sequence that would send any XML compliant parser
> astray if it treats STYLE element content as #PCDATA?

An interesting proposal.  I do know that the CSS-WG has carefully considered
and designed CSS syntax to make both the <style> element and "style"
attribute "markup parser friendly" in the past.

Can you name any such problems in current CSS syntax?

Tantek
Received on Friday, 9 August 2002 13:45:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:52 GMT