W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 1999

Re: New Working Draft : BECSS

From: Daniel Glazman <Daniel.Glazman@der.edf.fr>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 10:02:51 +0200
Message-ID: <37F85F2B.5A7A4D6@der.edf.fr>
To: jelks@jelks.nu
CC: www-style@w3.org
Jelks Cabaniss wrote:
> 
> Chris Wilson wrote:
> 
> > There are quite a few problems with using BECSS as a separate linking
> > mechanism.  The first, of course, is that there is NO standard provision for
> > linking them into the document.  We would, in essence, end up having to use
> > the LINK REL=STYLESHEET
> 
> Looking at the <!ATTLIST LINK ...> declaration in the [x]HTML DTDs shows that
> REL has a content of CDATA, there's nothing that says it has to be STYLESHEET.
> Why not <link rel="behaviors" type="text/becss" href="foo.becss"> or some such?

Yes, why not ? But I'd really like to hear other voices than only yours and mine
about this specific point, Jelks. What do other subscribers to this list think ?

Can you please all answer to the 3 following questions (mark answer with X)?

YES	NO	QUESTION

[ ]	[ ]	Should CSS and Behavioral Extensions be mergeable in a
		single file, from a web author's perspective ?
[ ]	[ ]	Should CSS and Behavioral Extensions be mergeable in a
		single file, from a developer's perspective ?
[ ]     [ ]	Should the text/css mimetype be used for CSS and BECSS ?
[ ]	[ ]	Should we propose instead a new mimetype and a new rel/rev value ?

Comments and explanations :


Thanks...

</Daniel>
Received on Monday, 4 October 1999 04:04:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:00 GMT