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

Re: XHTML 1.0, section C14

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 09:46:59 +0900
Message-Id: <06E9A986-B922-4524-975C-5DE18834A3C7@w3.org>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
To: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>


Le 21 nov. 2006 à 01:07, David Dorward a écrit :
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 05:00:35PM +0100, Johannes Koch wrote:
>
>> I read something between the lines, "If you have a style element  
>> in your
>> XHTML document, and you want to make it compatible with an HTML and a
>> somewhat generic XML renderer, then use an xml-stylesheet PI  
>> referencing
>> the style element's id."
>
> That's the interpretation I'd put on it BUT ...
>
>  * Why is that in the HTML compatibility guidelines and not an
> appendix for generic XML parser compatibility guidelines?
>  * Doesn't it contradict the advice of C1?
>  * Why <style> but not <link>?
>  * Why do authors have to read "between the lines" of a specification?

Why asking so many questions to hide answers? ;)
For the last bit which is unrelated to the issue. Specifications will  
always be a land of interpretations. Perfection doesn't exist. We can  
try to remove ambiguities, to make things simpler to understand, etc.  
but there will be always room for interpretation.

So I have a precise question: Did you have a practical real problem  
created by the section C14?
Please give a pointer to a document online where you give your  
interpretation of the problems, then we can start to discuss about  
the C14.

Thanks



-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 21 November 2006 00:47:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:08 GMT