W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2002

Last call comments on "CSS media queries"

From: Philipp Hoschka <ph@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 13:53:41 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <3C73F0A4.D44D86EA@w3.org>
To: www-style@w3.org
Folks,

here are my last call comments. Overall, I have the feeling
that there are starting to be too many notations to describe
device features, and that some convergence would do no
harm. I'm aware of at least CC/PP/UAPROF, IETF conneg, SMIL
and SVG test attributes, SDP, and now CSS media queries.

Detailed comments:

- Please add a reference to RFC2534 in the reference section

- RFC2533 "A Syntax for Describing Media Feature Sets"
provides a syntax for describing media feature sets
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2533.txt

In the "related work" section, please explain why you could not 
reuse this syntax (I think I know the answer to this, but it 
would be good to have it on record)

- Please add a reference to CC/PP in the reference section

- CC/PP (and UAPROF) provide an RDF-based syntax to describe 
combinations of device characteristics. Please explain why 
you did not reuse this syntax by either
  + embedding a CC/PP description in the document
  + referring to an external CC/PP description via a URI

- One of the guiding principles of W3C's work on Web 
architecture is to avoid central registries, and to use 
URIs to identify objects. See e.g.
"in new developments, all significant objects with any 
form of persistent identity should be "first class objects" 
for which a URI exists." in the Architecture document
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Architecture.html

or
"In HTTP, the format of data is defined by a "MIME type". 
This formally refers to a central registry kept by IANA. 
However, architecturally this is an unnecessary central point 
of control, and there is no reason why the Web itself should 
not be used as a repository for new types. Indeed, a transition 
plan, in which unqualified MIME types are taken as relative URIs 
within a standard reference URI in an online MIME registry, 
would allow migration of MIME types to become first class 
objects."
in the same document

CC/PP uses URIs for media features, CSS media queries uses
a central registry. Using URIs has the additional benefit
of providing simpler extensibility and evolvability than
a central registry.

Could you address on why you chose to use one central
registry, rather than a URI-based solution such as CC/PP ?

- Please define the media features defined in CSS media
query using an RDF schema as described in
http://www.w3.org/TR/CCPP-struct-vocab/#Appendix_D

This way, these media features can also be used in CC/PP 
descriptions.

Thx !

-Philipp
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2002 05:24:16 GMT

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