W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 2006

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

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 22:35:47 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Epperson, Beth" <bepperson@websense.com>
Cc: w3c-html-wg@w3.org, xhtml2-issues@hades.mn.aptest.com, www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0602092232280.28514@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Epperson, Beth wrote:
> 
> I would suggest that this be a response from the CSS WG. As a member of 
> the WG - Ian, I would suggest you bring this to the F2F where the CSS WG 
> come to an internal agreement as to whether the desire is to have the 
> attribute removed or retained. Once the CSS WG has a decision, then 
> request a joint meeting where both WG's can discuss and finally agree 
> and be done with this discussion. But wait - we already did that 2 or 3 
> years ago - hence it is in the spec.

In that case, as I said in my original request:

> > > > > 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.

What I am asking for is for EITHER:

 A. The "style" attribute to be removed, to be consistent with the 
    sentiment in section 1.1.3,

OR:

 B. The text in section 1.1.3 to explain why it is considered ok to have 
    presentational attributes but not presentational elements.

That's all I'm asking for. It should not be difficult to do option B, if 
there really is a good reason not to do option A. Just say what the reason 
is in section 1.1.3.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 22:35:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:05 GMT